PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 8, 2014
Sage-Grouse and Endangered Species Conservation and Protection Act - Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to extend to five years the deadlines for determining whether there is substantial evidence in support of a petition to add or remove a species from the list of endangered or threatened species and the petition is warranted. Prohibits a petition from being considered for 10 years after either a determination is made that the petition is not warranted or a regulation to list a species is withdrawn.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce as appropriate (the Secretary) to make publicly available a cost-benefit analysis of listing the species when a petition is found to be warranted.
Prohibits the Secretary from adding to the list a species in a state in which the majority of lands are managed by the federal government, unless specified information is provided to the state.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires conservation measures to be conducted on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and National Forest System lands to address the habitat and viability of: (1) endangered or threatened species, and (2) other species to alleviate the need to list a species under such Act. Establishes a program to sell certain public land parcels to generate revenues for such measures.
Requires activities on BLM or forest land parcels of 10,000 acres or less and that are related to threats to protected species to be: (1) categorically excluded from the requirements relating to environmental assessments or environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act, and (2) exempt from the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and related requirements.
Requires the Secretary to use the best scientific and economic data available in conducting the five-year reviews of the status of listed species.
Deems a designation of critical habitat that restricts the uses of land to be a regulatory taking of property.
People & committees
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, 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
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. 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 H.R.4419 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 H.R.4419 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 H.R.4419 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 H.R.4419 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.