Twenty-three Republicans have it exactly right. A hasty vote in the House of Representatives on a poorly understood and minimally debated overhaul of the Endangered Species Act is a terrible idea.

In a letter last Friday to Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the Republicans saw HR 3824, the wryly named Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, for what it is. "The bill is complex, highly controversial and aims to make perhaps the most profound changes to environmental law since the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990." GOP lawmakers were appropriately upset the text of the legislation had only been available a few days last week before it sailed through the House Resources Committee chaired by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who has wanted to gut the ESA for years.

The landmark 1973 law works to protect and restore threatened and endangered wildlife, plants and fish. The law provides for specific protections as well as efforts to conserve critical habitat linked to survival and recovery. In addition, the act requires consultation and review ahead of activities by the federal government that could make things worse.

Pombo wants to speed up the clock on the review of potential harmful projects so landowners and businesses can proceed if the federal Fish and Wildlife Service does not promptly evaluate their plans.

He would allow the secretary of the interior to give federal agencies the right to police themselves on ESA matters.

In the rush to approve this bill, it is an open question how critical habitat would be treated in the revised act. Vague passages, quirky language and key words get no scrutiny with everything on a fast track.

A prime example of the unknown is the wacky compensation envisioned by Pombo's legislation. Property owners who suffer an adverse ruling would be paid the forgone value of a rejected use. For example, reimbursement would not be based on the fair market value of an unusable vacant lot, but the value of a proposed apartment complex. The full House, with a war and hurricane damage to pay for, might want to mull over the financial implications of that idea.

Haste can also swamp potentially beneficial changes to the 32-year-old federal law, such as language that encourages voluntary arrangements between the government and private landowners to protect species and habitat.

"There is no justification for a rush to judgment." So say 23 House Republicans, who have it exactly right.