Congress voids forest crime rule—but won't say what crimes
S. 3520 — CLEAR Act of 2025 · Filed by Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) · 4 cosponsors · Introduced Dec 17, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill voids a Forest Service rule issued in November 2024 that established criminal prohibitions for conduct on federal forest lands, and bars the Secretary of Agriculture from implementing any substantially similar rule. The bill restores the legal landscape to what existed before the rule took effect, preventing federal enforcement of the criminal standards the rule created.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is to void a specific Forest Service rule and prohibit substantially similar rules, but the bill text does not disclose what conduct the voided rule criminalized. This is a deregulatory bill whose actual effect on citizens depends entirely on information withheld from the bill itself.
What the text implies
- The bill voids a rule by citation to the Federal Register without restating or summarizing the rule's substantive provisions, making it impossible for legislators or the public to know what criminal prohibitions are being removed.
- The phrase 'substantially similar rule' in subsection (b) creates an open-ended bar on future rulemaking, potentially preventing the Forest Service from issuing any criminal-prohibition rule on the same subject matter, even if circumstances change.
- The bill's title ('Community Law Enforcement Authority Restoration Act') suggests it restores local law enforcement authority, but the text does not mention local law enforcement or any transfer of authority — the title may misdirect readers about the bill's actual mechanism.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill removes criminal liability for unspecified conduct on federal forests, which may benefit citizens and businesses operating there, but without knowing what conduct the voided rule criminalized, the public-interest cost cannot be assessed. If the rule addressed serious harms (environmental destruction, trespassing, poaching), removing it harms public safety and resource protection; if it criminalized minor or ambiguous conduct, removal may be justified.
Who stands to gain
- timber and logging companies
- mining operators on federal forest lands
- commercial recreation outfitters
- private entities conducting business on federal forests
Named in the bill
Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, Federal Register, 89 Fed. Reg. 92808, November 25, 2024
Where it stands
4 cosponsors: 4 Republicans.
- Dec 17, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Dec 17, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (525 characters) on Aug 19, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress voids forest crime rule—but won't say what crimes” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s3520 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.