CPR's Glicksman Testifies on Endangered Species Act

by Matthew Freeman | April 20, 2016

Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar (and board member) Rob Glicksman is on Capitol Hill testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s subcommittee on the Interior this afternoon at 2 pm ET. The hearing will focus on “barriers to delisting” of species under the Endangered Species Act.

He’ll cover four major points in his testimony, which he summarizes thusly:

First, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has achieved considerable success in achieving its conservation goals. Second, budgetary constraints have prevented the two agencies that oversee implementation of the statute, the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), from compiling an even better track record. Third, citizen participation in ESA implementation has played an important role in promoting the statute’s goals. Fourth, Congress in 1973 had good reasons for allocating to the federal government the primary responsibility for implementing the ESA (although it also sought to solicit state participation, accommodate state wildlife and water resource policies, and encourage federal-state partnerships), and those reasons remain just as valid today as they were then.

With respect to his second topic — budget constraints on the FWS and NMFS — he says,

For more than 20 years, Congress has funded the ESA through annual appropriations at levels inadequate to enable the FWS to comply with its statutory duties on a timely basis. ...

At Senate Hearing, CPR's Verchick Provides Sole Voice of Reason on Flawed 'Regulatory Budgeting' Proposal

by James Goodwin | December 09, 2015
This morning, CPR President and Loyola University, New Orleans, Law Professor Robert R.M. Verchick testifies at a hearing convened by the Senate Budget Committee to examine a dangerous regulatory policy proposal known as “regulatory budgeting.” As he explains in his testimony, regulatory budgeting represents a stark departure from the traditional focus of regulatory policy discussions, which have long been concerned with improving the effectiveness—or quality—of regulatory decision-making. Regulatory budgeting, by contrast, makes the total number—or quantity—of regulations the primary focus, ...

Steinzor to Senate Subcommittee: What's the Cost of Preventing an Asthma Attack?

by Erin Kesler | October 21, 2015
This morning, CPR Member Scholar and University of Maryland School of Law professor Rena Steinzor testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste and Regulatory Oversight for a hearing focused on, "Oversight of Regulatory Impact Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations."  In her testimony, Steinzor noted the limitations of "Regulatory Impact Analysis," or RIA, which agencies are mandated to conduct on all rules they finalize and measures the rules' "costs and benefits."  When measuring the costs and benefits of EPA rules ...

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015