Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Action Versus No Action Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- 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
- Scored +2
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill may benefit timber and forest management businesses by streamlining processes.
- Scored +2
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The focus on forest health and timber production may benefit residents in rural, resource-dependent areas.
- Scored +2
Is this likely to grow the economy?
The bill supports timber production which can contribute to local economic activity.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill limits environmental review options, potentially reducing the scope of ecological protections.
- Scored -2
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
The bill's streamlining of reviews may reduce the rigor of environmental assessments intended to mitigate emissions.
- Scored -1
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Restricting environmental review options may decrease the transparency of the decision-making process.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Streamlined Environmental Reviews: By requiring the Secretary to study and describe only two alternatives—the proposed activity and the "no action" alternative—the bill limits the scope of environmental assessments or impact statements (Section 2(b)).
-
Specific Impact Evaluations for No Action: When considering the "no action" alternative, the Secretary must evaluate effects on forest health, potential losses of life and property, habitat diversity, wildfire potential, and insect and disease potential (Section 2(c)(1)).
-
Broader Consideration of Consequences: The bill requires the Secretary to consider how declines in forest health or resulting wildfires/infestations might impact domestic water supply, wildlife habitat loss, and other economic and social factors (Section 2(c)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Limitation of Alternatives: The bill restricts the Secretary to studying only two specific alternatives—the proposed management activity and no action—which limits the consideration of other potential options during the environmental review process (Section 2(b)).
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill may benefit timber and forest management businesses by streamlining processes. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The focus on forest health and timber production may benefit residents in rural, resource-dependent areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill supports timber production which can contribute to local economic activity.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The limited alternatives could restrict the scope of public input and due process in environmental review. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Restricting environmental review options may decrease the transparency of the decision-making process.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill aims to streamline management activities focused on forest health and wildfire mitigation. Does this invest in rural communities? — By streamlining forest management, the bill may aid rural timber-dependent economies. Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — The bill emphasizes wildfire prevention and risk reduction to protect life and property. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill limits environmental review options, potentially reducing the scope of ecological protections. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The bill's streamlining of reviews may reduce the rigor of environmental assessments intended to mitigate emissions.
- 9/15/2026
- Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17.
- 5/21/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 5/12/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
- 2/7/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
- 1/3/2025
- 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