PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 1, 1995
Forest Fire and Pest Emergency Act - Declares that the reduction of natural fuels on Federal lands within California that have been identified as extreme fire risk constitutes an emergency action to prevent or to reduce risk to public health or safety or to serious resource loss. Directs Federal agencies to work with State agencies to identify areas of extreme fire risk and take action to reduce natural fuels. Authorizes the use of emergency fire suppression funds to reduce natural fuels in such areas, provided that reductions in the Sierra forests are consistent with the fuels management guidelines of the California Spotted Owl EA or subsequent EIS and that fuels reduction activities in roadless areas preserve such area's unique characteristics. Directs the Forest Service to prepare a budget request declaring an emergency in areas identified as requiring additional treatments due to drought or pest infestation on national forest lands. Directs Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Congress a strategic fire plan and annual budget.
People & committees
Rep. Herger, Wally [R-CA-2] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior, USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands.
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: Aug 21, 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.770 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.770 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.770 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.770 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.