PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-37.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 7, 2015
Common Sense in Species Protection Act of 2015
This bill amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require the Department of the Interior or the Department of Commerce to exclude an area from designation as a critical habitat to conserve an endangered or threatened species if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the area, unless the failure to designate the area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
At the time a proposed rule to designate a critical habitat is published, the appropriate department must make available for public comment a draft analysis that: (1) examines the incremental and cumulative economic effects of all actions to protect the species and its habitat upon each state and locality that is affected by the proposed designation; (2) includes consideration of economic effects on possible uses of land and property values, employment, revenues available for state and local governments, and the provision of water, power, or other public services; and (3) assesses those effects on a quantitative and qualitative basis.
People & committees
Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-37.
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.112 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.112 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.112 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.112 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.