Tom McClintock (R-CA)
To provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of California, and for other purposes.
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 617.
Waiting for a floor vote in the other chamber
Passed one chamber and is on the other chamber's calendar.
The calendar is a queue, not a date. The majority leadership decides what comes to the floor and when; much of what is placed on it is never called, and a bill that is never called simply expires with the Congress.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- Awaiting Senate
- On Senate calendar
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill deals with the transfer of certain federal land in Tuolumne County, California. It moves roughly 160 acres of National Forest System land so it can be managed as part of Yosemite National Park. It also moves roughly 170 acres of National Park System land so it can be managed as part of Stanislaus National Forest. The land switches are based on a map titled Ackerson Meadow Land Interchange. The bill allows the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to make minor corrections and adjustments to the transferred land by mutual agreement. Finally, the bill states that existing rights, permits, leases, and easements on the land are not affected by the transfers.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill optimizes administrative jurisdiction by transferring land to the agency best suited for its management.
- Scored +2
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Transferring land to the National Park System generally increases conservation and environmental protections.
- Scored +1
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Improves the management of public lands within Tuolumne County, which may benefit local rural residents.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 1(a)(1) transfers approximately 160 acres of National Forest land to the Secretary of the Interior to be managed as part of Yosemite National Park. This might be considered positive because it places the land under the management and laws applicable to the National Park System.
-
Section 1(b)(1) allows the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to make minor corrections and adjustments to the transferred land by mutual agreement to facilitate land management. This might be considered positive because it gives officials the flexibility to fix survey errors or make minor adjustments.
-
Section 1(c) protects valid existing rights, withdrawals, rights-of-way, easements, leases, licenses, and permits on the transferred land. This might be considered positive because it ensures that people who currently hold valid authorizations on the land will not lose them due to the transfer.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- There are no explicit negative impacts or burdens on individuals or groups of people mentioned in the text of the bill.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill optimizes administrative jurisdiction by transferring land to the agency best suited for its management. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Transferring land to the National Park System generally increases conservation and environmental protections.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improves the management of public lands within Tuolumne County, which may benefit local rural residents.
In the queue for a floor vote, with no date set
- 9/15/2026
- Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 617.
- 9/14/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5567)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5567)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8454.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5567-5568)
- Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 8/27/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-777.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 678.
- 7/22/2026
- Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
- 7/1/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 6/24/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
- 4/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.