PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 16, 2024
Restoring Our Unopened Trails for Enjoyment and Safety Act or the ROUTES Act
This bill requires the reopening of certain recreation sites closed due to a natural disaster.
In the case of a recreation site that is fully or partially closed due to damage caused by a natural disaster (including certain standing trees that present a visible hazard), the Department of the Interior (with respect to Interior recreational lands) or the Department of Agriculture (with respect to National Forest System lands) must reopen the site not later than two years after the date on which the disaster ends.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill categorically excludes specified activities from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement where the primary purpose of the activity is, consistent with the applicable management plan, to
repair and restore recreation sites damaged by a natural disaster,
remove hazard trees for the purpose of public safety or improving access,
mitigate and reduce soil erosion impacting a recreation site,
restore drainage patterns to support a recreation site, or
any combination of these purposes.
The bill provides for emergency hazard tree removal.
Interior or Agriculture must report to Congress and make the report publicly available.
People & committees
Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40] · R–CA
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. 753.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-921, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-921, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry.
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Natural 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 Natural 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: May 27, 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.6994 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.6994 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.6994 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.6994 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.