PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 10, 1994
Balanced Economic and Environmental Priorities Act of 1994 - Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit a Federal officer or employee from implementing or enforcing a designation of critical habitat, an issued protective regulation, or a developed recovery plan under such Act unless the Secretary (either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as program responsibilities are vested): (1) prepares an economic impact analysis with respect to such designation, regulation, or recovery plan; (2) determines that the benefits of it outweigh the costs of it; and (3) publishes an economic impact statement describing the findings of the analysis. Establishes guidelines for such economic impact analysis. Directs the Secretary to: (1) limit economic losses incurred by persons caused by listing species as endangered or threatened; and (2) compensate such persons for any diminishments in the value of tangible or intangible property, and in the loss or diminishment of a job. Requires congressional approval of any additions to the endangered species list. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) review endangered or threatened species added on or after such date to a published list of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973; (2) prepare an economic impact analysis and statement with respect to them; and (3) publish a list of all designations of critical habitat, regulations, and recovery plans in effect on the date of that publication (the implementation and enforcement of which is prohibited by the amendments made by this Act). Prohibits a person from being paid for any loss incurred by species being added to a list of endangered species or threatened species published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 during the period beginning January 1, 1986, and ending on the enactment of this Act, except for losses resulting from the implementation or enforcement of designations of critical habitat, regulations, and recovery plans that are not included in the list published under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
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 26, 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.3997 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.3997 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.3997 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.3997 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.