PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 115-112.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 9, 2017
Litigation Relief for Forest Management Projects Act
This bill amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Federal land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to prohibit the Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the Department of the Interior from being required to engage in any additional consultation with respect to: (1) the listing of a species as threatened or endangered, or a designation of a critical habitat, if a land management plan or land use plan, respectively, has been adopted by USDA or Interior as of the date of the listing or designation; or (2) any provision of such an adopted plan.
People & committees
Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT] · R–MT
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. 115-112.
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.605 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.605 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.605 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.605 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.