PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Action Versus No Action Act
This bill limits the scope of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for forest management activity on certain public lands to only the following two alternatives: (1) the effects of the forest management activity, and (2) no action.
The bill applies to any EA or EIS prepared by the Forest Service or the Department of the Interior for a forest management activity on public land that is suitable for timber production and that
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
occurs on land designated as an insect and disease treatment area under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,
is developed through a collaborative process,
is proposed by a resource advisory committee, or
is covered by a community wildfire protection plan.
In the case of the alternative of no action, the Forest Service or Interior must consider whether to evaluate
the effect of no action on forest health, potential losses of life and property, habitat diversity, wildfire potential, insect and disease potential, and timber production; and
the implications of a resulting decline in forest health, loss of habitat diversity, wildfire, or insect or disease infestation on potential losses of life and property, domestic water supply in the project area, wildlife habitat loss, and other economic and social factors.
People & committees
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
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.
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.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 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.184 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.184 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.184 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.184 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 · 2025-01-03 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 Action Versus No Action Act would limit certain federal environmental reviews of forest management projects to comparing the proposed project with taking no action. It would apply to projects on land suitable for timber production that also meet specified designation, collaboration, advisory committee, or wildfire planning conditions. Federal officials would have to consider whether to evaluate specified risks of taking no action; the bill would not require every listed evaluation.
This Act may be cited as the Action Versus No Action Act.
(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.
the Secretary concerned shall study, develop, and describe only the following two alternatives: (1) The forest management activity. (2) The alternative of no action.
the Secretary concerned shall consider whether to evaluate
The proposal would apply when the responsible secretary prepares an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act for a qualifying forest management activity. These are the environmental review documents covered by the bill. The activity must take place on land identified as suitable for timber production and meet at least one additional eligibility condition.
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:
The additional eligibility conditions are alternatives: the project could be on land designated under section 602(b) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, developed collaboratively, proposed by a resource advisory committee, or covered by a community wildfire protection plan. The designated-land condition would apply even if the activity began before enactment.
(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.
For covered environmental reviews, the responsible secretary would be required to study, develop, and describe only two alternatives: carrying out the forest management activity and taking no action.
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.
For the no-action alternative, the secretary would have to consider whether to evaluate effects on forest health, potential losses of life and property, habitat diversity, wildfire potential, insect and disease potential, and timber production. The wording requires consideration of whether to evaluate these subjects, rather than requiring each evaluation.
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;
The secretary would also have to consider whether to evaluate the consequences of any resulting forest decline, loss of habitat diversity, wildfire, or insect or disease infestation, taking historical fire, insect, and disease cycles into account. The listed subjects are potential losses of life and property, domestic water supply in the project area, wildlife habitat loss, and other economic and social factors. This language identifies subjects for possible evaluation; it does not establish that these harms would occur.
the Secretary concerned shall consider whether to evaluate
(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.
The Secretary of Agriculture would administer these requirements for National Forest System lands, and the Secretary of the Interior would administer them for public lands.
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.
A collaborative process would mean developing and implementing a project with interested people under the referenced Healthy Forests Restoration Act provision. The proposal also uses definitions of community wildfire protection plans and resource advisory committees from existing statutes.
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)).
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).
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).
The supplied September 19, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House on January 3, 2025, subcommittee hearings on May 21, 2026, and committee consideration on September 15, 2026. It records a 21–17 vote ordering the bill reported with a substitute—a replacement version of the text. That action does not itself establish enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:34:22Z.
2025-01-03: Introduced in House
2026-05-21: Subcommittee Hearings Held
2026-09-15: Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17. 2026-09-15: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. 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 the contents or attachment history of 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 and does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No separate narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential benefit warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The project eligibility conditions define the main policy's coverage. This conclusion is limited to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI