Don't you think that is drive enough, that if our goal is to preserve these species, then we ought to look at enabling and empowering any and everyone to have a say in it.

I think that is clear from the text of the statute, as written.

At a 2 percent success rate, that is hardly success.

Well, do we make a distinction that are consequences of human versus non-human factors in the petitioning process?

The problem is the process is being abused.

When someone says you are not allowed to ask questions, you are not allowed to look at the data, you are not allowed to debate the issue, you are not allowed to look at the full scope of the data, that is not a scientist talking, that is a…

I find it very interesting that you like to cherry-pick.

The Endangered Species Act serves a noble purpose that is necessary to the conservation of many species.

These organizations have subverted well-intentioned policy.

I take offense to that. I would encourage you to look at our website and review the list of the 166 stakeholders throughout the country that are supporting these bills.

A less than 3 percent recovery rate for endangered species is anything but the mark of a successful law.

Forty-five years ago, when the ESA was conceived, it was laudably designed so that anyone could work with the government to save a species.