PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 10, 2002
Directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to: (1) expeditiously complete hazardous fuels reduction projects consistent with the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy for a Collective Approach to Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment; (2) develop a project selection process with interested parties; and (3) establish a commission and monitoring process to evaluate project impact and effectiveness.Gives implementation priority to: (1) wildland urban interface areas; (2) municipal watersheds; or (3) forested or rangeland areas affected by disease, insects, or wind throw.Authorizes the Secretaries to temporarily exclude from environmental documentation requirements certain projects in areas (condition class 3) identified in a specified Forest Service map and report. Requires that all specified hazardous fuels operations funds be used in such areas.Sets aside specified funds for small, economically disadvantaged communities.
People & committees
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
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: Jan 14, 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 S.2920 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 S.2920 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 S.2920 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 S.2920 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.