RepublicanBill · H.R. 184· House(119-HR-184)

Action Versus No Action Act

Rep. McClintock
Age: 70 years
California
Introduced
1/3/2025
Last activity
9/15/2026 — Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17.
Sponsored by
Tom McClintock
Cosponsors
None
Public Lands and Natural Resources
  1. Introduced

What this bill would do

The "Action Versus No Action Act" limits the types of alternatives considered during environmental reviews for certain forest management activities. It applies when the Secretary is preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement for lands suitable for timber production. These activities include those developed through collaborative processes, proposed by resource advisory committees, or covered by community wildfire protection plans. Under this bill, the Secretary is restricted to studying only the proposed forest management activity and the "no action" alternative. The "no action" alternative requires an evaluation of specific impacts such as forest health, wildfire potential, and potential losses of life and property.

Yes· 3 of 6

  • Would business owners be better off under this?+2

    The bill may benefit timber and forest management businesses by streamlining processes.

  • Would people in rural areas be better off under this?+2

    The focus on forest health and timber production may benefit residents in rural, resource-dependent areas.

  • Is this likely to grow the economy?+2

    The bill supports timber production which can contribute to local economic activity.

The opposite· 3 of 4

  • Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?-3

    The bill limits environmental review options, potentially reducing the scope of ecological protections.

  • Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?-2

    The bill's streamlining of reviews may reduce the rigor of environmental assessments intended to mitigate emissions.

  • Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?-1

    Restricting environmental review options may decrease the transparency of the decision-making process.