PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 13, 1997
Gallatin Land Consolidation Act of 1998 - Authorizes a land exchange (for inclusion in the Gallatin National Forest) between the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and the Big Sky Lumber Company (BSL). Provides that if BSL offers fee title to specified land that is acceptable to the United States, the Secretary of: (1) Agriculture shall accept a warranty deed to the land, convey to BSL (subject to specified limitations) fee title to up to 25,000 acres of National Forest System land, grant to BSL timber harvest rights to up to 50 million board feet of timber, and (subject to availability of funds) purchase land belonging to BSL in the Taylor Fork area at a purchase price of up to $6.5 million; and (2) the Interior shall convey fee title to approximately 1,860 acres of Bureau of Land Management land. Requires that the property and other assets exchanged by BSL and the United States be approximately equal in value, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare, grant to BSL, and administer specified timber harvest rights over a period of five consecutive years. Specifies that timber harvest volume shall constitute the timber sale program for the Gallatin National Forest for that five-year period. Directs such Secretary, if exceptional circumstances prevent the Secretary from conveying such rights, to replace the value of the diminished harvest rights by substituting equivalent timber harvest rights volume from the same market area, conveying national forest lands containing merchantable timber with such Forest, or making a payment from funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) procedures applicable to all national forest timber harvest rights identified for exchange; (2) the exchange agreement; (3) rights-of-way; (4) quality of title; and (5) timing of implementation of the exchange agreement.
People & committees
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12607)
Introduced in Senate
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: 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.1562 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.1562 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.1562 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.1562 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.