PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.House Committee on Agriculture Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 22, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 4, 2002
Healthy Forests Reform Act of 2002 - Directs the Council on Environmental Quality to: (1) treat the threat of catastrophic wildfire on Federal lands as an emergency circumstance; and (2) establish an expedited environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for fire reduction and forest health measures on certain Federal lands.Directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior (Secretaries) to jointly establish an independent panel to assess agency actions concerning wildfire reduction, forest health and biodiversity promotion, and watershed protection.Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a predecisional review process for the Forest Service. Repeals, 90 days after enactment of this Act, Forest Service decisionmaking and appeal provisions under the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993.Directs that emergency response activities proceed immediately due to extraordinary circumstances affecting Federal lands, including actions to reduce bark beetle infestation and attendant catastrophic wildfire threat in the Routt National Forest, Colorado. Exempts all such activities from judicial review and certain notice, comment, and appeal requirements.Authorizes the Secretaries to enter into stewardship contracts for land management activities on Federal lands.Authorizes appropriations for fuel reduction activities.
People & committees
Rep. McInnis, Scott [R-CO-3] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
House Committee on Agriculture Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 22, 2002.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-770, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-770, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
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: Apr 7, 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.5319 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.5319 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.5319 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.5319 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.