PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 2, 2001
Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2001 - Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) give greater weight to scientific and commercial data that is empirical or that has been field-tested or peer-reviewed in determining that a species is an endangered or threatened species; and (2) promulgate regulations that establish criteria for data to be used as the basis of such a determination.Prohibits the Secretary from determining that a species is endangered or threatened unless the determination is supported by data obtained by observation of the species in the field. Requires the Secretary to accept, acknowledge receipt of, and include in the rulemaking record of such a determination data collected by landowners through observation of the species on the land.Requires the Secretary to publish with the notice of a proposed regulation a description of additional scientific and commercial data that would assist in the preparation of a recovery plan, invite any person to submit such data, and describe the steps for acquiring additional data.Directs the Secretary: (1) to solicit recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences and develop a list of qualified reviewers to participate in independent scientific review actions; (2) before any proposed action becomes final, to appoint from such list three individuals who shall report on the scientific information and analyses on which such action is based; and (3) to include such report in the official record of the proposed action.Requires the Secretary, in consulting with each Federal agency and the affected States to insure that any agency action is not likely to jeopardize any endangered or threatened species or destroy the species' habitat, to: (1) consider information provided by such States; and (2) provide any person who has sought authorization or funding from a Federal agency for an action the opportunity to submit, discuss, and receive information relevant to the draft biological opinion.
People & committees
Rep. Walden, Greg [R-OR-2] · R–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Committee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Aug 19, 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 H.R.2829 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 H.R.2829 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 H.R.2829 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 H.R.2829 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.