PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Oct 31, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
National Forest System Vegetation Management Pilot Program Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct a limited, voluntary pilot program to permit vegetation management projects on National Forest System (NFS) land adjacent to rights-of-way to better protect utility infrastructure from potential passing wildfires.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Program participants must have a right-of-way on NFS land. USDA shall give priority to holders of a right-of-way who have worked with Forest Service fire scientists and used technologies, such as light detection and ranging surveys, to improve utility infrastructure protection prescriptions.
Vegetation management projects will involve limited and selective vegetation management activities, which:
shall create the least amount of disturbance necessary to protect utility infrastructure from passing wildfires;
may include thinning, fuel reduction, and creation and treatment of shaded fuel breaks;
must only take place adjacent to the participant's right-of-way or within 75 feet of it;
must not take place in any designated wilderness area, wilderness study area, or inventoried roadless area; and
shall be subject to approval by the Forest Service.
Participants shall not be held liable to the federal government for damage that was proximately caused by activities conducted pursuant to an approved vegetation management project, unless:
such activities were carried out in a manner that was grossly negligent or that was in violation of criminal law, or
the damage was caused by the participant's failure to comply with the specific safety requirements imposed by the Forest Service as a condition of participation in the pilot program.
In order to implement the pilot program in an efficient and expeditious manner, USDA may waive or modify specific provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, including to allow for the development of contracts or agreements on a noncompetitive basis.
USDA may:
retain any funds provided to the Forest Service by participants in the pilot program, and
use such funds to conduct such program.
The bill states that the authority to conduct the pilot program and any vegetation management projects under such program will expire on December 21, 2027.
People & committees
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND-At Large] · R–ND
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H8280-8281)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8280-8281)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2921.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8280-8282)
Mr. Crawford moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 261.
Committee on Natural Resources discharged.
Committee on Natural Resources discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 115-357, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 115-357, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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 Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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 Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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 currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.2921 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.2921 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.2921 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.2921 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.