PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 471.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 23, 2002
Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2002 - Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require the use of the best scientific and commercial data available as a basis of determinations on a petition to add or remove a species from the endangered species list. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to give greater weight to any scientific or commercial study or other information that is empirical or has been field-tested or peer-reviewed.Requires that a petition regarding a species contain clear and convincing evidence of the current and historic ranges of the species concerned, of the most recent population estimates and trends for the species, that any alleged change in the population is beyond normal fluctuations, and of the reason that the petitioned action is warranted.Directs the Secretary to: (1) promulgate regulations that establish criteria that must be met for scientific and commercial information to be used as the basis of a determination to support listing a species; and (2) identify and publish in the Federal Register with notice of a proposed regulation a description of additional scientific and commercial data that would assist in the preparation of a recovery plan. Prohibits the Secretary from determining that a species is endangered or threatened unless field data collected supports the determination.Requires the Secretary to: (1) appoint an independent review board to review and report on the scientific information and analyses on which a covered action is based before such covered action becomes final; and (2) provide specified participation opportunities to any person who has sought authorization or funding from a Federal agency for an action that is subject to consultation regarding its effects on endangered or threatened species or habitats.
People & committees
Rep. Hansen, James V. [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 471.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-751.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-751.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 22 - 18.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Committee Hearings Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
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: Apr 7, 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.4840 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.4840 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.4840 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.4840 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.