PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 18, 2014
Travel and Resource Access Including Local Stakeholders Act - Requires the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as a condition on the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for a proposed access travel management action, to consult with affected counties for the purpose of incorporating their needs, uses, and input. Prohibits the Secretary from implementing such an action until the Secretary: (1) complies with such consultation requirement, and (2) obtains the concurrence of each affected county.
Defines an "access travel management action" as a BLM action that will alter public access to public lands, including any change in access to mining claims or access using motorized vehicles or nonmotorized means resulting from the decommissioning of a road or trail, a change in the status of a road as open or closed, or a change in road densities.
People & committees
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4] · R–AZ
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 Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.5598 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.5598 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.5598 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.5598 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.