Legislation aimed at limiting the reach of the Endangered Species Act comes up Tuesday in the House Natural Resources Committee, where Democrats lack the votes to counter any GOP moves on the act.
Among the bills the committee plans to markup are:
* A measure by U.S. Rep. Pete Olson, a Republican from Texas, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require review of the economic cost of adding a species to the list of endangered or threatened species.
* A proposal by U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington state, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require making available all data that is the basis of a determination of endangered or threatened species to states affected by the determination.
* A measure by U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that nonnative species in the United States shall not be treated as endangered species or threatened species.
Also on the committee's agenda is legislation to delist the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes and Wyoming from Endangered Species Act protection, and block any legal efforts to overturn the delisting. The measure was introduced by Rep. Collin Peterson, a member of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.
Rep. Peter Visclosky, a Democrat from Indiana, has asked the committee to approve legislation to rename Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore as Indiana Dunes National Park.
The committee meeting gets under way at 4 p.m. Tuesday in the Longworth House Office Building.
Comments
Ugh.
Common sense, good science and a half century of very hard work are being trumped.
Lets see. They want to consider the economic cost, have all the data and not protect weeds. And people object? Who is trumping common sense and good science.
They want all the data so they can slander the people that prepare it and attack those that give the opionions. This is attack on science plain and simple.
As for the cost, then we should consider the cost of EVERYTHING. Trips to MaraLargo, $5m a pop. Putting people in prison costs $100k a year, maybe we should not do that. Forcing someone to raise an unwanted child $250,000 I guess we better keep abortion legal. It's a poor argument. Since when does the dollar carry more weight that God's creation.
Perhaps my "favorite" of the bunch:
We do consider the cost in most instances. We consider the cost of protecting the President (no matter who) as worthwhile. We consider putting someone in prison for $100k preferable to killing them or letting them continue a reign of crime and many consider the life of a child worth more than $250,000, not to mention the alternative of adoption. (Kind of ironic that you appear to endorse killing one of God's creations to save $250,000) To ignore the cost is absurd and to hide the data is just a page from the climate change playbook.
Troll alert!
Some reading comprehension lessons are needed. Read Bill's comment again.
Read again and my reply stands as written.