Executive Comment Requested from Interior, Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 25, 1995
Endangered Species Relisting Act of 1995 - Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that a covered species shall not be considered to be an endangered or threatened species for purposes of such Act unless: (1) in the case of a species which is included in a list of endangered or threatened species on the date of this Act's enactment, a petition is filed to relist that species on such list and the review of such petition is completed by the Secretary of the Interior according to specified criteria; or (2) in response to a petition or on the Secretary's own initiative, the Secretary determines in accordance with specified requirements that the species is certain to become extinct or will be placed on an irreversible course to extinction over the 24-month period beginning on the date of the determination. Requires that such a determination be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be subject to comment after publication in the Federal Register for 60 days prior to taking effect. Authorizes the Secretary to utilize information contained in a recovery plan developed prior to this Act's enactment with respect to a species in making such a determination. Makes such a determination subject to judicial review. Sets forth annual reporting requirements for the Secretary. Prohibits the Secretary from taking any action with respect to the inclusion of a species in, retention of a species on, or removal of a species from the list or the development, revision, approval, or implementation of a recovery plan based on any data, result, or determination (data) which has not undergone peer review. Requires the Secretary to submit to peer review (by at least three independent reviewers selected by the Secretary from among individuals recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)) all data that are the basis of such an action and all data that is timely submitted to the Secretary by any person likely to be affected by the Secretary's action. Directs the Secretary to: (1) publish the results of any such peer review and all materials relevant to a decision to take action; and (2) obtain recommendations of individuals to perform peer review from the NAS and, in the case of economic analyses, from the appropriate scientific board. Sets deadlines for the development of recovery plans. Requires the Secretary, for any species for which one or more proposed recovery plans are submitted that would adequately promote the conservation and survival of a species, to adopt the plan that would impose the lowest costs on persons affected by the plan, apply to more than one species, and not result in a prohibition of use of the land or water for other purposes. Specifies that a taking that occurs in the course of specified activities (such as any action by a State or local government agency to respond to, prevent, or mitigate an emergency and any lawful activity that is approved by a State or local government) is not prohibited by the Act if the taking is de minimis in nature and merely incidental to the activity.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1714 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1714 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1714 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1714 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.