PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 372.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Jun 15, 2012
Amends the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (the Act) to extend the term of the pilot forest management project for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests in California.
Requires that when the Regional Forester for Region 5 initiates the process of amending or revising such plans for the pilot project area (the federal lands within the Plumas and Lassen National Forests and the Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest designated as available for group selection) the process include the preparation of at least one alternative that incorporates the pilot project and area designations, the resource management activities, and other aspects of the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal.
Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to expand the pilot project area to include all of the National Forest System lands in California or Nevada that lie within the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Province, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo National Forests.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Deems those areas that are designated as deferred under the Act, but located in Tehama County, south and west of Lassen Peak, as being designated as available for group selection.
People & committees
Rep. Herger, Wally [R-CA-2] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 372.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-524, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-524, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 16.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
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 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.3685 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.3685 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.3685 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.3685 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.