HR 184 Re-checks Congress.gov for new actions and updates the bill's status, and fills in any sponsors, committees, or related bills that are missing. It does not re-pull sponsors/cosponsors/committees/related — those rarely change — and it skips all work if nothing has changed upstream, so it's cheap to click.
To require that only two alternatives be considered with respect to certain proposed collaborative forest management activities, and for other purposes.
Summary
The bill modifies environmental review requirements for certain collaborative forest management activities on federal lands designated as suitable for timber production. For these forest management projects, the bill requires that environmental assessments or environmental impact statements consider only two alternatives: the proposed forest management activity itself and the alternative of taking no action. When evaluating the no-action alternative, the bill directs the reviewing agency to consider effects on forest health, potential life and property losses, habitat diversity, wildfire potential, insect and disease potential, and timber production, as well as implications of declining forest health and wildfire risk on water supply, wildlife habitat, and economic and social factors. The bill applies to forest management activities developed through collaborative processes, proposed by resource advisory committees, covered by community wildfire protection plans, or designated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
AI-generated plain-language summary of the bill text — neutral, and may be imperfect. See the full text below for the exact wording.
Sponsor (1)
Money behind the sponsor
Top reported contributors to Tom Mcclintock’s campaign committee (2024 cycle) — who funds the bill’s sponsor, not a claim about this bill. Data from FEC.
- SOVEREIGN NATION $21,650
- NOT PROVIDED $14,100
- TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE SUPPORT, INC. $10,700
- NULL $10,350
- CEN-CAL FIRE SYSTEMS, INC. $6,600
Organizations whose employees gave the most — itemized individual contributions grouped by the donor’s reported employer (FEC Schedule A). Full finance for Tom Mcclintock → · Outside spending →
Actions (5)
- May 21, 2026 Subcommittee Hearings Held · house
- May 12, 2026 Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. · house
- Feb 7, 2025 Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture. · house
- Jan 3, 2025 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. · house
- Jan 3, 2025 Introduced in House
More bills on these subjects (8)
Other bills that carry the most legislative subjects in common with this one (topical discovery — distinct from the procedural related bills above).
Similar bills (6)
Bills with similar text or summary — includes reintroductions across Congresses. Ranked by semantic similarity of the bill text (computed locally); a neutral discovery aid, not a claim the bills are duplicates.
Text versions (1)
Bills are re-published as they move (Introduced → Reported → Engrossed → Enrolled …). Each stage below is a separate text; pick two to see what changed. Data from Congress.gov.
Committee action
What happened to this bill in committee — the meetings where it was considered and every recorded vote taken on it.
Meetings where this bill was on the agenda
Full text
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2025
Mr. McClintock introduced the following bill; which was 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
A BILL
To require that only two alternatives be considered with respect to certain proposed collaborative forest management activities, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Action Versus No Action Act”.
SEC. 2. ANALYSIS OF ONLY TWO ALTERNATIVES (ACTION VERSUS NO ACTION) IN PROPOSED COLLABORATIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
(a) Application to Certain Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements.—This section shall apply whenever the Secretary concerned prepares an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement pursuant to section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) for a forest management activity that—
(1) will occur on lands identified as the Secretary concerned as suitable for timber production; and
(2) meets at least one of the following conditions:
(A) The forest management activity will occur on lands designated by the Secretary (or designee thereof) pursuant to section 602(b) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591a(b)), notwithstanding whether such forest management activity is initiated prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) The forest management activity is developed through a collaborative process.
(C) The forest management activity is proposed by a resource advisory committee.
(D) The forest management activity is covered by a community wildfire protection plan.
(b) Consideration of Alternatives.—In the case of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement described in subsection
(a), the Secretary concerned shall study, develop, and describe only the following two alternatives:
(1) The forest management activity.
(2) The alternative of no action.
(c) Elements of No Action Alternative.—In the case of the alternative of no action described in subsection (b)(2), the Secretary concerned shall consider whether to evaluate—
(1) the effect of no action on—
(A) forest health;
(B) potential losses of life and property;
(C) habitat diversity;
(D) wildfire potential;
(E) insect and disease potential; and
(F) timber production; and
(2) the implications of a resulting decline in forest health, loss of habitat diversity, wildfire, or insect or disease infestation (given fire and insect and disease historic cycles) on—
(A) potential losses of life and property;
(B) domestic water supply in the project area;
(C) wildlife habitat loss; and
(D) other economic and social factors.
(d) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) Collaborative process.—The term “collaborative process” means a process relating to the management of National Forest System lands or public lands by which a project or forest management activity is developed and implemented by the Secretary concerned through collaboration with interested persons, as described in section 603(b)(1)(C) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591b(b)(1)(C)).
(2) Community wildfire protection plan.—The term “community wildfire protection plan” has the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511).
(3) Resource advisory committee.—The term “resource advisory committee” has the meaning given the term in section 201 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7121).
(4) Secretary concerned.—The term “Secretary concerned” means—
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System lands; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public lands. <all>
Comments