PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-380.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 4, 2015
Directs the Department of the Interior to implement a management program within the areas of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah that are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to: (1) improve rangeland conditions for wildlife and livestock carrying capacity in those areas, and (2) restore livestock grazing to the level of usage in those areas that existed as of September 17, 1996.
Requires Interior, in issuing or renewing grazing permits and in issuing or modifying allotment management plans for livestock grazing in those areas, to incorporate standards and guidelines that are consistent with: (1) the "Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah", approved by the Secretary on May 20, 1997; and (2) the applicable BLM regulations contained in regulations relating to livestock grazing on public land.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-380.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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.365 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.365 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.365 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.365 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.