PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 26, 2020
Undoing NEPA’s Substantial Harm by Advancing Concepts that Kickstart the Liberation of the Economy Act of 2020 or the UNSHACKLE Act of 2020
This bill revises the environmental review process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), including by
establishing deadlines for federal agencies to complete reviews of the environmental effects of proposed major federal actions;
establishing penalties for agencies that do not comply with these deadlines;
limiting the number of assessment documents required for proposed major federal actions, requiring agencies to reuse certain research or documents, and allowing agencies to adopt environmental documents prepared by states or third parties;
requiring agencies to only consider alternatives to proposed actions that are technically and economically feasible;
prohibiting agencies from considering whether proposed actions or alternatives to those actions will have an effect on climate change; and
establishing requirements concerning the judicial review of NEPA cases.
People & committees
Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.4862 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 S.4862 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 S.4862 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 S.4862 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.