H.R. 1662House108th Congress (2003-2005)In Committee

Endangered Species Data Quality Act of 2004

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

6 earlier actions

HouseCalendars Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 479.

November 19, 2004

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

April 8, 2003

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Resources.

Natural Resources Committee

April 8, 2003

HouseCommittee

Executive Comment Requested from Interior.

Natural Resources Committee

April 15, 2003

HouseCommittee

Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

Natural Resources Committee

July 21, 2004

HouseCommittee

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 15.

Natural Resources Committee

July 21, 2004

HouseCommittee

Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-785.

Natural Resources Committee

November 19, 2004

HouseCalendars

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 479.

November 19, 2004

Floor Debate

6 members

What members said about H.R. 1662 on the floor

1 Republican5 Democrats

Rep. Brad ShermanD-CA-27 · Jul 8, 2004

Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this rule so that I can offer an amendment to simply say that no committee in any year can spend more than $25,000 on just postage. That would be $50,000 a Congress.…

Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this rule so that I can offer an amendment to simply say that no committee in any year can spend more than $25,000 on just postage. That would be $50,000 a Congress. Why would such a limit be needed? Why is the $25,000 limit needed? After all, in the year 2002, the average committee spent only $2,104 on postage. The largest amount spent by any committee during the 107th Congress on an annualized basis was $6,807.

I know the gentlewoman from New York cited the amounts requested by committees. They requested a bit more than these figures. But when we look at what they actually spent, no committee needed to spend in the average year more than $6,807 in the 107th Congress.

But a new phenomenon has arisen. The Committee on Resources has decided it needs more resources. In the 107th Congress it spent $2,483 per year on postage. For the 108th Congress they requested a quarter million dollars per year for postage; $500,000, half a million dollars, for the whole 108th Congress.

Think of this from a fiscal responsibility standpoint. That is a 4,445 percent increase over what they requested before. Maybe that is not too bad. After all, 4,445 percent increase in the cost of a government agency, no fiscally responsible person would object to that. But do not compare it to what they requested last Congress. Compare it to what they actually spent. Then it is a 9,968 percent increase. Maybe somebody with some fiscal conservatism would be concerned about that, a committee which in the last Congress spent $2,483 on postage now wants to spend $250,000 on postage.

We do not know what they are spending all this money for. It is hard to get the information. But we do know that last quarter, just in 3 months, the committee spent $49,587 on postage, and when they spend money on postage, they inevitably have to spend money on printing, and, yes, they spent $40,732 on printing.

What did they use the money for? Not to carry on committee business in the sense of telling the press what the committee is doing, writing to experts to see if they can gather information. This is not individually sent-out letters, no. These were mass mailings into individual Members' districts, $250,000 per year. What kind of mailings went out? Here is an example that was referred to by the gentlewoman from New York. We will see that this mailing went out to Arizona. Our information is that it went it to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Renzi) district, who happens to be one of the most targeted Members in the entire Congress by one political party. It praises three Members of the Arizona delegation for cosponsoring a bill, and if we read it very carefully, it attacks or implicitly criticizes a fourth Member of the Arizona delegation for not cosponsoring this bill. I might add it is a terrible bill, but the mailing praises those who cosponsor it. Our information is that it went just to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Renzi) district; so the fact that it implicitly criticizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) is not of great significance unless he has statewide ambitions I am unaware of.

In any case, what does this mailing do? It lauds a Member. Some of these mailings are going out in violation or possible violation of the blackout period. So we are used to not sending out mailings 90 days before an election. Apparently the committee chairmen can. This mailing seems rather benign in that it lauds a Member, and it does so only on one issue.

Mark my words: If we do not draw the line now, the next piece will be a hit piece, and it will not be limited to one issue. It will not even be limited to a committee's jurisdiction. It will be an attack piece sent out a day or a week before an election.

How is this all different from the Member communications that we are aware of? Because many of us send mail to our constituents. First, a Member gets a limited Members' representational allowance. We are responsible to our districts, to the recipients of that mail. If the mail is informative, then I can tell my constituents we sent them informative mail that came out of our budget, which we could otherwise have used to hire personnel. But a committee chairman is not responsible to the people who receive the mailing, so they could look at it and say this is wildly uninformative. It is a terrible waste of money. It says it was paid for at taxpayer expense. I do not like it, but it does not matter because my Member did not send it. It comes out of the budget of some Washington committee.

Second, the MRA funds are at least distributed relatively equally by party. Each Member gets their own account. This $500,000 went solely to one political party. And it is not just $500,000. If we do not draw the line now, it will be 5 million, it will be 25 million. It will not be one committee; it will be every committee.

Members also know what information their constituents need to receive. Committee chairmen, with all due respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), I do not think he is an expert at what information people in the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Renzi) district need to hear. Then we are going to be told that these are to announce field hearings. I might add this piece of mail has nothing to do with any field hearing. But we could have a rule that we have these slush funds, but only if we are announcing a field hearing.

A field hearing should be a field hearing, not an excuse for propaganda, not a district-wide town hall on behalf of an endangered Member or a targeted Member.

Finally, I know here in Washington that our targeted watchdog groups publish lists. They criticize those who spend money on postage and printing. They wonder whether that is a good use of government resources.

Well, wait a minute. None of these groups caught this. They will attack a Member for spending $100,000 on postage. How about $250,000 on postage?

We need to do something about it, and we need to do something about it today. If you vote for this rule, you are voting for giant political slush funds, not just of half a million dollars, but for as large as they are done by whichever party controls this House. You cannot say you are going to deal with it tomorrow if you vote against dealing with it today. Vote against the rule.

Rep. John LinderR-GA-7 · Jul 8, 2004

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 707 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 707 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 707 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2005. It is a fair and appropriate rule and should be approved by the House so we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation.

H. Res. 707 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It also provides that the bill shall be considered as read.

H. Res. 707 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.

The rule makes in order only those amendments put in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. H. Res. 707 provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report.

Finally, H. Res. 707 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the chairman of the subcommittee. He has worked very closely with his ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran of Virginia), in crafting this bill, and for that he deserves our support. This appropriations bill is one of the more challenging bills to manage, and he does so with respect to the institution in which we all serve.

I do want to specifically note that this is a fiscally responsible bill, and I commend the gentleman from Georgia's (Chairman Kingston) management oversight that will certainly ensure that organizational changes are managed better within the agencies of the legislative branch of government.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a fair amendment process for consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we did have this discussion in the Committee on Rules about the printing yesterday. It just came up yesterday for the Republicans being criticized forever for rushing things to the floor. This seems a bit quick for the Democrats to do so. None of us on the Committee on Rules, Republican side, have seen that yet, but the committee of jurisdiction is actually the Committee on House Administration, and I think

it would be appropriate to let the authorizing committee have a shot at this to take a look at the problem before we move to address it on the House floor in an appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the gentleman came very close to impugning the motives of the chairman and the actions of the committee. I would just suggest that he tread a bit more lightly on that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that the gentleman was not referring specifically to me, because I do not have Federal health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am in no way trying to defend or impugn any question of what the Committee on Resources did, but I think the appropriate place to have a look at that is through the Committee on House Administration or through the bipartisan Committee on Franking. I expect that will be done. Not on the floor of the House.

I know they do not want to miss an opportunity to make political hay over this, but the fact of the matter is, this is an inappropriate place to have that discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Rep. David R. ObeyD-WI-7 · Jul 8, 2004

Mr. Speaker, all I can say in response to the last comment is if the committees adhere more closely to the spirit of the rules of the House, maybe we will not tread so closely in questioning their…

Mr. Speaker, all I can say in response to the last comment is if the committees adhere more closely to the spirit of the rules of the House, maybe we will not tread so closely in questioning their motives.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote for this bill, and I am not going to vote for it for two reasons.

Number one, we have the continued saga of that ridiculous hole out in front of the Capitol, the Capitol Visitors Center. You remember back in the good old days when we had a budget surplus, and then we were told by the Republican majority that we could pass $6 trillion in tax cuts and still have money left over? Now we have dug ourselves into a huge deficit hole again, the biggest deficit in the history of the country. That hole in front of the Capitol, created for the construction of the so-called visitors center, really, in my view, is a symbol of what we have done to the Nation as a whole. We have dug a huge hole for the Nation.

In this case, in the case of the visitors center, you have an addition to the Capitol which started out to cost

about a quarter of a billion dollars; it is now up to half a billion dollars. And the completion date, I would bet you, before it is over, will slip to sometime in 2007. I just continue to think it is a ridiculous, overblown use of taxpayers money.

But there is something else in this bill that really bugs me. I happen to believe that the number one national disgrace in this country is the fact that some 44 million people are struggling every day without health care coverage. There is a provision in this bill which enables a study to go forward to see whether or not we will add supplemental health and dental benefits for Members of Congress under our health care plan.

Now, I happen to believe that congressional employees should have dental coverage, and I think that Members of Congress should have dental coverage. But I also think that every citizen of this country ought to have access to health care and ought to have decent dental coverage.

We just marked up the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill; and in contrast to the consideration that we are going to give Members of Congress about adding new health care benefits, what did the committee do this morning with respect to health care benefits for the rest of Americans?

I will tell you: the chairman's mark on the Labor-Health-Education bill today entirely terminates the Community Access Program, which is the glue that makes health delivery to the poor work in 70 communities in this country.

The chairman's mark cut several other programs. It cuts Rural Health Outreach grants, which support primary health care, dental care and mental health and telemedicine projects. It cuts those projects by 24 percent.

The Maternal and Child Health Care block grant is only 2.9 percent above the fiscal 2001 level, which means that we have a 10 percent loss of purchasing power for that program for average Americans.

Then, if you go on, you see that childhood immunization, the cost to immunize a child has gone up by 24 percent since 2001. Appropriations have increased by only 15 percent. So we are having a growing gap in terms of our ability to immunize children in this country.

So it just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a substantial gap between what we are willing to consider doing for the average American when it comes to health care and what we are willing to consider doing for Members of Congress.

I do not want to vote to deny health care coverage of any kind to anybody, but I want to say this to the majority in this House: if you vote for this legislative appropriations bill today, by God, do not dare to bring out an expansion of health care benefits for Members of Congress until you have also brought out legislation to this floor that covers health care for every American. And make sure that those Americans have the same kind of coverage, including dental care, that you would like to see for the average Member of Congress. Unless you do that, you will be giving hypocrisy a bad name.

Rep. James P. MoranD-VA-8 · Jul 8, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I plan to vote for this bill, but there is no way I can support this rule. There were a…

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I plan to vote for this bill, but there is no way I can support this rule.

There were a total of eight amendments submitted. There were seven by Democrats, one by a Republican. The one by the Republican was allowed. Only one out of the seven submitted by Democrats was allowed.

A lot of them had no political overtones whatsoever. What is wrong, for example, with studying ways to improve and expand day care services on the Hill for our employees? That is hardly political. The only thing I can imagine is wrong is that a Member of the majority did not think of it; and I am sure if they had, it would have been made in order. But that should have been allowed, to study it.

Now, I acknowledge that at least four of the amendments have some political overtones, and I can appreciate the embarrassment that Members of the majority must experience when their legislative actions stretch the bounds of proper rules and procedures of the House.

How long, I think we know how long, what, 3 hours we kept that vote open on Medicare prescription drugs. We have subsequently read about all of the promises and the threats that were thrown back and forth to change the result, successfully, I might add.

Then, on a separate issue, how often have we seen conference agreements completed before the conference was even convened? The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) had every right to bring our attention to that abuse of power.

I doubt the majority would have approved any of those amendments, but they should have been debated.

Then there are the two amendments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). First, should C-SPAN tapes be rebroadcast for political purposes? I am not sure, but I think it is something that ought to be discussed on the floor of the House, and I regret the fact that we did not get an opportunity to discuss it.

He had a second amendment to curb another potential abuse of power. I think it could be a pretty serious one. It is inappropriate to use the franking privilege out of committee resources to mail mass propaganda pieces on behalf of any Member, on the majority or the minority side.

Now, if you look at the numbers that we have, the Committee on Resources apparently has asked for about half a million dollars to be mailing pieces into other Members' districts. We saw the explanation by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). No matter how much we want to cooperate with the other side, this is a major potential abuse of power, if somebody does not stand up and say wait a minute, there is something wrong with this.

This has to be discussed. The public needs to be aware of it before we embark on this. Of course, if nothing is said, other committees are likely to do the same thing, and no ranking member has that ability.

So this was an amendment that really needed to be discussed, and perhaps in that discussion we could get an explanation that would show us that this is not as abusive as it appears at first glance. Perhaps there is a logical explanation, but we sure ought to get that kind of explanation. The fact that we were denied the opportunity to discuss this is reason enough to vote against the rule.

What we are looking for is fairness. We are looking for the resources in this bill to continue this great institution at a reasonable level, a fiscally responsible level, one that is acceptable to both sides. But when the process is clearly not acceptable to both sides, I think we have an obligation to stand up and say no.

I would like to see some support from the other side of the aisle for raising objection to the way in which this rule was put together.

Rep. Louise McIntosh SlaughterD-NY-28 · Jul 8, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding…

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn that House committee was sending mail into the committee members' districts. During yesterday's Committee on Rules hearing on the appropriations bill for the legislative branch, we learned that the Committee on Resources is sending mail to committee members' districts touting the individual Member's accomplishments on that committee. Mailed under the chairman's frank, these laudatory mail pieces are sent out as Committee on Resources reports.

But listen to what they say: ``Members of Arizona's congressional delegation are making a difference for Arizonans every day through their work on the House Committee on Resources. Arizona is fortunate to have Congressmen Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake and Raul Grijalva on these important issues.''

It goes on to read, ``Committee members Renzi, Hayworth and Flake supported the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which provides resource managers with the tools they need to combat the dangers of overstocked forests.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have four of these committee mailings submitted for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment offered by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), was perfectly germane. The only reason in the world it was turned down was for political reasons. It was a major embarrassment that they had been found out, and I have to assure the people who are listening today that on my part, and I am sure on the part of others, that we will not rest until we rectify this mistake, although it is not a mistake. It is a blatant attempt, frankly, to misuse taxpayers' money as incumbent protection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Show 1 more

Rep. Benjamin L. CardinD-MD-3 · Jul 8, 2004

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me take this time just to express my disappointment with this rule and my opposition to it. I listen…

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this time just to express my disappointment with this rule and my opposition to it. I listen frequently where Members of Congress like to say that we do not want to treat ourselves differently than we treat the general public. Yet

on this appropriations bill that affects our budget, we use different standards than we do on other appropriations bills. That is wrong.

The ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), pointed out there are only eight amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules. It would have been very easy to allow those amendments to be considered and then use the democratic process to either vote up or down those amendments. But, no, the majority refuses to allow us to have a debate on this floor on issues that affect the manner in which we operate the legislative branch.

I am particularly disappointed that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was not made in order. We have an obligation to make sure that the resources of this body are used appropriately. That is the Committee on Appropriations' responsibility; that is the responsibility of our debate on the legislative branch bill. Yet we are not going to have an opportunity to see whether we could use a better standard on the franking privileges of our committees.

It is my understanding that the majority controlled that. The minority has no opportunity. The majority has used that at least in one committee in a partisan manner. That is wrong. We should have a chance to be able to debate that issue.

We work together to try to make sure that the resources of the legislative are used appropriately. In this case, it looks like it was not. Our opportunity to speak is when the legislative appropriation bill is on the floor. We are going to be denied that opportunity, because the majority refused to make in order an amendment so we could have that debate. That is wrong.

Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, reject this rule, so that we have an opportunity to be able to have a full discussion on the legislative branch appropriation, as we would on any other appropriations bill that comes before this body.

Bill Text

2 versions available

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF

Reported in HouseIssued November 19, 2004

        [Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1662 Reported in House (RH)]

Union Calendar No. 479
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 1662

[Report No. 108-785]

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require the Secretary of
the Interior to give greater weight to scientific or commercial data
that is empirical or has been field-tested or peer-reviewed, and for
other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 8, 2003

Mr. Walden of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Herger,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Otter, Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Paul, Mr. Cannon, Mr. McInnis, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Stenholm, Mr.
Nethercutt, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Renzi, and Mr. Brady of
Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Resources

November 19, 2004

Additional sponsors: Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Bishop of
Utah, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Wicker,
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Dooley of California, Mr. Linder, Mr. Gary G. Miller
of California, Mr. Akin, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Cardoza, Mrs. Emerson, Mr.
Nunes, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Terry, Mr. Tancredo,
Mr. Sandlin, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Miller of Florida,
Mr. Turner of Texas, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Issa, Mr. Ross, Mr. Putnam, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Blunt, Mrs. Musgrave,
Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Ose, Mr. Flake, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Neugebauer, Ms. Hart,
Mr. Hayworth, Ms. Harris, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Cramer, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, and Mr. Duncan

November 19, 2004

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed
in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on April
8, 2003]

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require the Secretary of
the Interior to give greater weight to scientific or commercial data
that is empirical or has been field-tested or peer-reviewed, and for
other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Endangered Species Data Quality Act
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. SOUND SCIENCE.

(a) Best Scientific and Commercial Data Available.--
(1) In general.--Section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended--
(A) by amending the section heading to read as
follows:

``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS.''.

(B) by striking ``For the purposes of this Act--''
and inserting the following:
``(a) Definitions.--In this Act:''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Use of Certain Data.--In any case in which the Secretary is
required by this Act to use the best scientific and commercial data
available or the best scientific data available, the Secretary shall--
``(1) ensure that such data comply with guidelines issued
under section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-
171) by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
and any guidance issued by the Secretary pursuant to such
guidelines, except as provided in this Act;
``(2) ensure that such data include timely field survey
data to the extent such data are available; and
``(3) give greater weight to interpretations of data
derived from or verified by timely field work (commonly
referred to as `empirical data') that have been subjected to
peer-review.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents in the
first section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is amended
by striking the item relating to section 3 and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 3. Definitions and general provisions.''.
(b) Use of Sound Science in Listing.--Section 4(b) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(9) Establishment of criteria for scientific data to
support listing.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations that establish criteria that must be met in order
to determine under this section that data is the best
scientific and commercial data available and for best
scientific data available to be used as the basis of a
determination under this section that a species is an
endangered species or a threatened species.
``(10) Field data.--
``(A) Requirement.--The Secretary may not determine
that a species is an endangered species or a threatened
species unless the determination or designation,
respectively, is supported by data obtained by timely
fields.
``(B) Data from real property owners and
operators.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) accept data during the appropriate
public comment period regarding the status of a
species that is collected by an individual who
is an owner of real property or who holds or is
an applicant for a contract, lease, or other
permit for real property through observation of
the species on the real property; and
``(ii) acknowledge receipt of data
submitted under clause (i) and include such
data in the rulemaking record compiled under
this section for any determination that the
species is an endangered species or a
threatened species.''.
(c) Use of Sound Science in Recovery Planning.--Section 4(f) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(6) Additional data.--
``(A) Identification.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) identify and publish in the Federal
Register with the notice of a proposed
regulation published pursuant to subsection
(b)(5)(A)(i), and with notice of any final
regulation published pursuant to subsection
(b)(6), a description of additional scientific
and commercial data that would assist in the
preparation of a recovery plan;
``(ii) invite any person to submit such
data to the Secretary; and
``(iii) describe the steps that the
Secretary plans to take to acquire additional
data.
``(B) Consideration.--Data identified and obtained
under subparagraph (A) shall be considered by the
recovery team and the Secretary in the preparation of
the recovery plan in accordance with section 5.''.

SEC. 3. PEER REVIEW.

Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Independent Scientific Review Requirements.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Covered action.--The term `covered action'
means--
``(i) a proposed determination under
subsection (a)(1) that a species is an
endangered species or a threatened species
under subsection (a)(1);
``(ii) a proposed determination under
subsection (a)(1) that would change the status
of a species as an endangered species or a
threatened species or would remove such a
species from any list published under
subsection (c)(1);
``(iii) the development of a recovery plan
for a threatened species or endangered species
under subsection (f); and
``(iv) the determination that a proposed
action is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species, including the
proposal of any reasonable and prudent
alternatives by the Secretary under section
7(b)(3).
``(B) Qualified individual.--The term `qualified
individual' means an individual--
``(i) who through publication of peer-
reviewed scientific literature or other means,
has demonstrated scientific expertise on the
species or a similar species or other
scientific expertise relevant to the covered
action;
``(ii) who does not have, or represent any
person with, a conflict of interest with
respect to the covered action that is the
subject of the review; and
``(iii) who has not advocated a position,
and is not employed by a person who has
advocated a position, with respect to the
outcome of the covered action that is the
subject of the review, or of any previous
covered action with respect to the affected
species.
``(C) Conflict of interest.--The term `conflict of
interest'--
``(i) shall have such meaning as is
established by regulations as shall be issued
by the Secretary; and
``(ii) shall include, in accordance with
such regulations, direct financial interests in
the outcome of the action that will be the
subject of the review, including consulting
arrangements, grants, honoraria, or employment.
``(2) Recommendation of independent reviewers.--The
Secretary shall solicit recommendations from the National
Academy of Sciences and the governors of affected States of
qualified individuals to serve as independent reviewers for a
covered action.
``(3) Appointment of independent scientific reviewers.--(A)
Before making the final decision on any covered action, the
Secretary shall appoint, from among the individuals recommended
under paragraph (2), 3 qualified individuals who shall review
and report to the Secretary on the scientific information and
analyses on which the covered action is based.
``(B) The selection and activities of the independent
reviewers appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall not be
subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
``(C) If funds are available, the Secretary shall provide
compensation to an individual for service as an independent
reviewer under this paragraph, at a rate not to exceed the
daily equivalent of the maximum annual rate of basic pay for
GS-14 of the General Schedule for each day (including travel
time) during which the individual is engaged in the actual
performance of duties as an independent reviewer.
``(4) Information for review.--The Secretary shall transmit
to the independent reviewers all available scientific and
commercial data identified in the administrative record for the
action at the time of the transmission.
``(5) Response of independent reviewers.--The independent
reviewers shall provide the Secretary, within 3 months after
the transmission of the data under paragraph (4), their reviews
regarding all relevant scientific information and assumptions
relating to the taxonomy, population models, and supportive
biological and ecological information for the species in
question.
``(6) Notice of data availability.--
``(A) Following receipt of the reviews provided
under paragraph (5) and not less than 30 days before
making the final decision on a covered action described
in paragraph (1)(A)(i) or (ii), the Secretary shall
publish a notice of the availability of the draft
determination of which data available qualify as the
best scientific and commercial data available on which
the final decision will be based and which do not,
including any ongoing assessments that are expected to
produce such data.
``(B) The Secretary shall provide the public with
not less than 15 days to identify any additional
information that should be considered as best
scientific and commercial data available data with
respect to a covered action described in paragraph
(1)(A)(i) or (ii), including the reasons why such
information should be so considered.
``(C) The Secretary shall explain, in the notice of
final covered action with respect to a covered action
described in paragraph (1)(A)(i) or (ii), why
information identified under subparagraph (B) did or
did not qualify as the best scientific and commercial
data available.
``(D) The Secretary shall identify the data that
qualified as the best scientific and commercial data
available on which the final decision with respect to a
covered action described in paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or
(iv) is based in a final biological opinion or final
recovery plan for the covered action.
``(7) Final determination.--The Secretary shall evaluate
the reviews received pursuant to paragraph (5) and include in
the final determination--
``(A) a summary of each independent review; and
``(B) in any case in which the Secretary does not
accept a recommendation of an independent reviewer with
respect to data reviewed pursuant to this subsection,
an explanation of why the recommendation was not
followed.
``(8) Public notice.--The reviews received by the Secretary
pursuant to paragraph (5) shall be included in the official
record of the final decision on the action and shall be
available for public review as soon as the final decision is
issued.''.

SEC. 4. IMPROVED CONSULTATION.

(a) Use of Information Provided by States.--Section 7(b)(1) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(1)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(C) Use of state information.--In conducting a
consultation under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary--
``(i) shall actively solicit and consider
information from the governor of the State
where the agency action is located; and
``(ii) shall provide an opportunity for the
governor of any State otherwise affected by the
agency action, as determined by the Secretary,
to submit information.''.
(b) Opportunity To Participate in Consultations.--Section 7(b)(1)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(1)) (as
amended by subsection (a)) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Opportunity to participate in
consultations.--
``(i) In general.--In conducting a
consultation under subsection (a)(2), the
Secretary shall provide to any person who has
sought authorization or funding from a Federal
agency for an action that is the subject of the
consultation or who holds or is an applicant
for a Federal contract, lease, or other permit
that may be materially affected by an agency
action that is the subject of the
consultation--
``(I) the opportunity, before the
development of a draft biological
opinion, to submit and discuss with the
Secretary and the Federal agency
information relevant to the effect of
the proposed action on the species and
any actions that could serve as
reasonable and prudent measures or
reasonable and prudent alternatives in
the event such measures or alternatives
are necessary to complete the
consultation;
``(II) information, on request,
subject to the exemptions specified in
section 552(b) of title 5, United
States Code, on the status of the
species, threats to the species, and
conservation measures, used by the
Secretary to develop the draft
biological opinion and the final
biological opinion, including any
associated statement under subsection
(b)(4); and
``(III) a copy, on request, of the
draft biological opinion, including any
draft statement under subsection
(b)(4), that was provided to the
Federal agency and, before issuance of
the final biological opinion and
statement, the opportunity to submit
comments on the draft biological
opinion and statement and to discuss
with the Secretary and the Federal
agency the basis for any finding in the
draft biological opinion and statement.
``(ii) Explanation.--If reasonable and
prudent alternatives are proposed by a person
under clause (i) and the Secretary does not
include the alternatives in the final
biological opinion, the Secretary shall explain
to the person why those alternatives were not
included in the opinion.
``(iii) Public access to information.--
Comments and other information submitted to, or
received from, any person (pursuant to clause
(i)) who seeks authorization or funding for an
action shall be maintained in a file for that
action by the Secretary and shall be made
available to the public (subject to the
exemptions specified in section 552(b) of title
5, United States Code).''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide guidance and
direction on the development and use of data under that Act,
and for other purposes.''.

Union Calendar No. 479

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 1662

[Report No. 108-785]

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require the Secretary of
the Interior to give greater weight to scientific or commercial data
that is empirical or has been field-tested or peer-reviewed, and for
other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

November 19, 2004

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed