PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 2, 2017
Forest Service Flexible Partnerships Act of 2017
This bill authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to lease as an administrative site, for consideration that is at least the market value of the site:
any facility or improvement that was acquired or is used for the administration of the National Forest System (NFS);
any federal land associated with such a facility or improvement that was acquired or is used for the administration of Forest Service activities and underlies or abuts such facility or improvement; or
per fiscal year, no more than 10 isolated, undeveloped parcels no larger than 40 acres each.
The bill makes the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applicable to the leasing of administrative sites, subject to an exception.
Cash consideration for an administrative site shall be available to USDA to pay:
necessary and incidental costs incurred in acquiring, improving, maintaining, reconstructing, or constructing a facility or improvement for the NFS and the lease of such site; and
reasonable commissions or fees for brokerage services obtained regarding the lease.
People & committees
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] · D–CO
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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 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 S.1705 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.1705 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.1705 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.1705 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.