The Action Versus No Action Act limits the environmental assessments required for certain forest management activities on public lands. Specifically, it restricts these assessments to two options: the effects of the proposed forest management activity or doing nothing at all. This applies to projects on lands suitable for timber production that are designated for insect and disease treatment, developed collaboratively, proposed by resource advisory committees, or included in community wildfire protection plans. If the 'no action' alternative is considered, the Forest Service or Department of the Interior must evaluate various impacts, such as forest health, risks to life and property, wildlife habitat, and economic factors.
H.R. 184 was introduced in the 119th Congress by Tom McClintock (Republican) and is currently listed as “Reported by Committee”. It is classified under the Public Lands and Natural Resources policy area, one of 158 bills in that area we track this Congress.
Tom McClintock is the sponsor of 7 bills in our database this Congress, so H.R. 184 is part of a broader legislative agenda rather than a one-off proposal.
Our conflict-of-interest analysis rates H.R. 184 2/10 (low risk), higher than 76% of analyzed bills; the average in Public Lands and Natural Resources is 2/10.
Supporters of the Action Versus No Action Act argue that it streamlines the environmental review process, making it easier and faster to implement necessary forest management activities. They claim this will help reduce the risk of wildfires and improve forest health, ultimately benefiting local communities and economies that rely on timber production and forest resources.
Critics of the Action Versus No Action Act express concern that it undermines environmental protections by limiting the scope of assessments. They fear that the bill could lead to inadequate evaluations of potential impacts on ecosystems and wildlife, and may prioritize timber production over long-term forest health and sustainability. Environmental groups warn that this could exacerbate issues related to climate change and biodiversity loss.
The analysis of H.R. 184, sponsored by Tom McClintock, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. This suggests that the financial interests of the donors do not directly influence the legislative intent of the bill. Given that there are no overlapping industries, the risk of conflicts of interest appears minimal. Voters should be aware that while campaign contributions can sometimes lead to perceived or actual conflicts, in this case, the absence of overlap indicates a lower likelihood of donor influence on the bill's provisions. It is important for constituents to remain vigilant and informed about the broader context of campaign financing but, based on the current data, this specific bill does not present significant concerns.
What does H.R. 184 do?
The Action Versus No Action Act limits the environmental assessments required for certain forest management activities on public lands. Specifically, it restricts these assessments to two options: the effects of the proposed forest management activity or doing nothing at all. This applies to projects on lands suitable for timber production that are designated for insect and disease treatment,…
Has H.R. 184 received a floor vote?
No roll-call vote on H.R. 184 is recorded in our database yet. Its current status is “Reported by Committee”.
Does H.R. 184 have a conflict of interest?
Our conflict-of-interest analysis rates H.R. 184 2/10 (low risk), higher than 76% of analyzed bills; the average in Public Lands and Natural Resources is 2/10. This score reflects overlap between the sponsor’s campaign funding, lobbying activity, and the industries the bill affects. It is a transparency indicator, not an accusation.
What is the status of H.R. 184?
H.R. 184 is currently “Reported by Committee” as of our last update on September 17, 2026.
Who sponsored H.R. 184?
H.R. 184 was sponsored by Tom McClintock (Republican).
