PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-1] · R–MT
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 Forestry and Horticulture.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Apr 15, 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 H.R.1762 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.1762 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.1762 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.1762 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-27 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Forest Service Accountability Act would require the President to appoint the head of the Forest Service with Senate approval. The person appointed would need substantial experience and demonstrated competence in managing forests and natural resources.
This Act may be cited as the Forest Service Accountability Act.
The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the Chief of the Forest Service.
An individual appointed under subsection (a) shall have substantial experience and demonstrated competence in forest and natural resources management.
The bill would add a new section on the Chief of the Forest Service to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994.
Subtitle E of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6961) is amended by adding at the end the following: 246. Chief of the Forest Service
If a nomination for Chief were submitted to the Senate for confirmation and referred to a committee, it would have to go jointly to two Senate committees: Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; and Energy and Natural Resources.
Any nomination of an individual to be the Chief of the Forest Service submitted to the Senate for confirmation, and referred to a committee, shall be referred jointly to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
The joint committee referral requirement would become a Senate rule, overriding existing rules only where they conflict. The bill expressly recognizes the Senate's constitutional right to change that rule at any time.
Paragraph (1) is enacted— (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, and as such is deemed a part of the rules of the Senate and supersedes other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent with such rules; and (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the Senate to change the rules at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.
The President would have to submit a nomination within 30 days after enactment of the new section, even if someone were already serving as Chief. This deadline concerns submitting a nomination, not completing Senate confirmation.
Notwithstanding any service by an individual serving in the position of Chief of the Forest Service on the date of enactment of this section, the President shall submit to the Senate a nomination for an individual to be the Chief of the Forest Service not later than 30 days after that date of enactment.
The supplied action snapshot, updated April 15, 2026, records introduction and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on February 27, 2025, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture on March 28, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-04-15T16:27:19Z. 2025-03-28: Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture. 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-27. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and accompanying committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 15, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI