PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Dec 22, 2014
Cabin Fee Act of 2014 - (Sec. 2) Establishes a new process for the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to set annual fees for the issuance of special use permits for the use and occupancy of National Forest System land for recreational residences commonly referred to as cabins.
Replaces the current process under which annual user fees are adjusted annually based on changes in land values, which are subject to reappraisals and appeals, with a new tiered system in which fees based on the current appraisal cycle are capped at a specified amount and adjusted annually for inflation only.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) complete the current appraisal cycle, including receipt of timely second appraisals, for such residences within one year after enactment of this Act; and (2) assess an interim annual fee for them according to a specified formula.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Specifies the annual fee for each of 11 fee tiers that are adjusted annually for inflation.
Requires the Secretary to report after 10 years on these annual fees in order to ensure that they reflect fair value for the use of System land, and on any recommendations to modify the fee system.
(Sec. 3) Directs the Secretary to establish a transfer fee of $1,200 for the issuance of a new recreational residence permit due to a change in ownership of the recreational residence.
(Sec. 5) Permits the Secretary, beginning 10 years after enactment of this Act, to: (1) retain and expend any fees collected under this Act, without further appropriation; and (2) use them to administer the recreational residence program and other recreation programs carried out on System land.
(Sec. 6) Repeals the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, effective on the date the annual permit fees are first assessed under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 538.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-707.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-707.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural 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: Dec 5, 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.5476 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.5476 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.5476 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.5476 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.