PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 175.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 10, 2013
Good Neighbor Forestry Act - Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA), with respect to National Forest System land, and the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, to enter into a good neighbor agreement (a cooperative agreement or contract, including a sole source contract) with a governor of a state to coordinate the procurement and implementation of authorized restoration services.
Defines "authorized restoration services" as similar and complementary forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services carried out on federal land and non-federal land by either the Secretary concerned or a governor pursuant to a good neighbor agreement.
Requires the Secretaries to make good neighbor agreements available to the public.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Makes certain National Forest System timber sales requirements of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 inapplicable to services performed under a cooperative agreement or contract entered into under this Act.
Requires the Secretaries to provide or approve all silviculture prescriptions and marking guides to be applied on federal land in all timber sale projects conducted under this Act.
Prohibits delegation to a governor of any decision required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) with respect to any authorized restoration services to be provided on federal land.
People & committees
Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 175.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Wyden with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 113-97.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Wyden with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 113-97.
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. 113-28.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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 S.327 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.327 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.327 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.327 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.