news

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-12) today introduced an amendment to H.R. 1335, legislation to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The amendment would stop efforts to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and preserve transparency and accountability in fisheries management decisions. Dingell spoke on the House floor today about the amendment. Excerpts from her speech are below.

“NEPA has a simple promise – look before you leap. For decades NEPA has improved our environment and fostered fairness in our communities by ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people. The NEPA process requires federal agencies to review their proposed actions in light of their potential impacts on the environment and the places where we all live, work and play.”

…

“Sadly H.R. 1335, the bill we are considering today, would short-circuit public review and comment on fisheries management decisions, casting NEPA aside in favor of an inadequate, poorly defined process that would make regional fishery management councils the ultimate arbiters of whether or not their own decisions would impact coastal communities and ocean ecosystems.”

…

“While I know my colleagues have good intentions, the practical impact of this language means that local communities and businesses will not have the same opportunity to comment and have input on decisions that will impact their livelihood. I don’t think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really want to limit public participation in this manner.”

…

Dingell’s amendment preserves current NEPA requirements, which require that plans to manage valuable resources be properly assessed before they are harvested.

Dingell’s full remarks as prepared for delivery can be read below.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a critically important law, not only for protecting the environment but also for protecting the people’s right to participate in government decision-making.

Sadly H.R. 1335, the bill we are considering today, would short-circuit public review and comment on fisheries management decisions, casting NEPA aside in favor of an inadequate, poorly defined process that would make regional fishery management councils the ultimate arbiters of whether or not their own decisions would impact coastal communities and ocean ecosystems.

Forcing important NEPA analyses to be fast-tracked onto a Council’s timeline would eliminate crucial oversight steps that provide stakeholders an opportunity to impact the public policy. While I know my colleagues have good intentions, the practical impact of this language means that local communities and businesses will not have the same opportunity to comment and have input on decisions that will impact their livelihood. I don’t think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really want to limit public participation in this manner.

My amendment simply strikes the harmful language from the bill that undermines NEPA because limiting transparency and accountability is not the right thing to do.

NEPA has a simple premise – look before you leap. For decades NEPA has improved our environment and fostered fairness in our communities by ensuring that government remains accountable to the people. The NEPA process requires federal agencies to review their proposed actions in light of their potential impacts on the human environment – the places where we all live, work and play.

Most importantly, NEPA gives the public an opportunity to review and comment on actions proposed by the government, adding unique perspectives to the evaluation process that highly specialized, mission-driven agencies might otherwise ignore.

In that way, NEPA is the ultimate check on big government: a uniquely American and quintessentially Democratic law written and executed to help people protect their rights and freedoms. Our founding fathers would certainly be proud.

I hope my colleagues will agree that existing NEPA protections should be preserved, and ask that you vote in favor of my amendment.