PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 12, 2015
FLAME Act Amendments of 2015
Amends the FLAME Act of 2009 to revise how the FLAME Funds for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) are funded.
Makes amounts appropriated to a FLAME Fund available to USDA or Interior for wildfire suppression operations if the department concerned notifies the relevant congressional committees that a wildfire suppression event is eligible for funding from the FLAME Fund.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to require certain adjustments to discretionary spending limits to accommodate appropriations for wildfire suppression operations in the Wildland Fire Management accounts at USDA or Interior.
Requires adjustments for fire suppression to be made if all amounts in the FLAME Fund established under the FLAME Act of 2009 have been expended and other specified conditions are met.
Amends existing disaster funding adjustments to discretionary spending limits to add provisions related to fire suppression adjustments. Authorizes USDA to conduct projects that involve the management or sale of national forest material within certain National Forest System (NFS) lands.
Amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to authorize the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to obligate funds to cover any potential cancellation or termination costs (cancellation ceiling) in stages that are economically or programmatically viable with respect to an agreement or contract for a stewardship end result contracting project. Requires the Forest Service and BLM to submit written notice to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget 30 days before entering into a multiyear agreement or contract that includes a cancellation ceiling exceeding $25 million if proposed funding for the costs of cancelling the agreement or contract up to the ceiling is not included.
Allows the Forest Service and BLM, if the offset value of the forest products to be removed exceeds the value of the resource improvement treatments, to: (1) use the excess to satisfy any outstanding liabilities for cancelled agreements or contracts; or (2) if there are no such outstanding liabilities, apply the excess to other authorized stewardship projects.
People & committees
Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ] · R–AZ
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 Energy and Natural Resources.
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.508 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.508 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.508 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.508 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.