PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 19, 2013
Endangered Species Management Self-Determination Act - Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to require the consent of the governor of a state in which a species is present for: (1) a determination of endangered or threatened species status by regulation, and (2) listing of the species as endangered or threatened by the Secretary of the Interior upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce.
Eliminates a rulemaking procedure involving the petitioning by an interested person for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the lists of endangered and threatened species.
Defines "best scientific and commercial data," for purposes of determinations, to include any scientific evidence made available by any state agency.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Subjects determinations by the Secretaries of the Interior and of Commerce to list species as endangered or threatened to congressional approval by joint resolution.
Requires removal of each species listed on an approved list five years after the joint resolution is enacted. Provides a procedure for re-submission by the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the governor of each state in which the endangered or threatened species is present, of a list including a species so removed and subjects that list to approval by joint resolution.
Eliminates the requirement for guidelines concerning petitions.
Establishes a process for exclusive state regulation of endangered or threatened species determined by a state governor to be present only within that state. Precludes judicial review of any such action. Subjects the following to the process of intrastate regulation: (1) issuance of species conservation regulations, (2) recovery plan implementation, (3) species recovery monitoring, and (4) establishment of agency guidelines.
Requires the Administrators of the Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations, except with respect to intrastate species regulation, to include in customer monthly billing statements information on the share of costs to the customer incurred as a result of ESA compliance.
Allows an owner or lessee of any real property to submit to the Secretary of the Interior an application that includes any proposed use of the real property for a determination of whether the use will violate ESA. Deems the use to be compliant if the Secretary fails to respond within 90 days. Allows the owner or lessee to seek compensation (150% of the property's fair market value) if the use is determined to violate ESA and an action of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service diminishes the fair market value of any real property by at least 50% with respect to the intended use.
Eliminates the award of attorney fees in citizen suits under ESA.
People & committees
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.3533 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.3533 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.3533 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.3533 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.