PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 11, 2006
Giant Sequoia National Monument Transition Act of 2006 - Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to proceed with and complete each timber sale located within the boundaries of the Giant Sequoia National Monument: (1) that was under contract as of April 15, 2000, the date of the designation of the Monument; or (2) for which a decision notice was signed after January 1, 1999, but prior to December 31, 1999.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) designate the Kings River Demonstration Project in the Sierra National Forest as the "Kings River Research Project" as a means to address disputes over fuels reduction projects and the benefits and impacts related to wildlife, watershed, and other resources; (2) provide, under the Project, for research about the potential positive and negative impacts of fuel reduction and forest health treatments on the Pacific fisher, California spotted owl, and the Kings River watershed; and (3) complete the final environmental impact statement and issue the record of decision for the Project by not later than October 31, 2006. Deems the final environmental impact statement and record of decision, along with all actions implementing the Project, to be in compliance with specified environmental laws, so long as any timber removed under the Project is removed using uneven-aged silvicultural treatments.
People & committees
Rep. Nunes, Devin [R-CA-21] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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 Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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 Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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.5760 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.5760 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.5760 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.5760 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.