PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 23, 2025
Expedited Appeals Review Act or the EARA
This bill authorizes a party that files an appeal of a Department of the Interior decision with the Interior Board of Land Appeals to submit a written request for expedited review of the appeal. (The mission of the board is to provide an impartial forum within Interior for the resolution of disputes involving public lands and natural resources under Interior's jurisdiction.)
If a party submits such a request, the board must issue a final decision on the appeal not later than six months after the date on which the request for expedited review was received. However, the deadline may not be earlier than 18 months after the date on which the appeal was initially filed with the board.
If the deadline for expedited review is not met, Interior's decision is deemed a final agency action and is subject to de novo judicial review (i.e., without deference to the agency's decision).
This bill applies to appeals pending as of the date of enactment of this bill and appeals filed after the date of enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-305.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1973)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1973)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 677.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1973-1974)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 63.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-88.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-88.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 23, 2026. 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.677 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.677 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.677 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.677 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.