PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 2, 1999
Endangered Species Fair Regulatory Process Reform Act - Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to specify findings to be included within a petition to add a species to either an endangered or threatened species list. Directs the Secretary of the Interior, upon publication of a proposed rule determining that a species is endangered or threatened, to make public all information on which the determination is based, including information that does not support such determination (with certain Federal disclosure exceptions). Requires an independent scientific peer review in the case of a regulation proposed to implement a finding that any species is endangered or threatened, or that any species currently listed in such manner should be removed from such list. Provides for the selection of referees for the peer review. Requires the Secretary to issue rules that establish criteria that must be met for scientific and commercial data to be used as the basis of any of the above determinations. Prohibits the Secretary from making any such determination unless it is supported by data obtained by species observation in the field. Directs the Secretary to make such determinations and revisions by a rule made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing: (1) in the State in which the largest population of the species exists; and (2) in the State for which the potential economic impact of the determination, designation, or revision is greatest. Limits such hearing to 30 days. Prohibits the Secretary from adding to or removing a species from such lists unless such action is supported by substantial evidence. Requires the Secretary to prepare and publish with a final rule an analysis of the economic impact of such rule. Prohibits the Secretary from releasing any experimental population on or affecting private property except by a rulemaking. Requires the Secretary to: (1) approve or disapprove an application for an incidental take permit within 90 days; and (2) provide the applicant with specific written reasons for disapproving any such application, along with measures that, if included, would result in application approval.
People & committees
Rep. Thomas, William M. [R-CA-21] · R–CA
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 Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E118)
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 20, 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.494 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.494 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.494 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.494 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.