Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1335, legislation that is very important to reauthorize the historically bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens Act.

While I have nothing but the utmost respect for my colleague from Alaska (Mr. Young), I am afraid that I fear that this legislation would take our fisheries management system in the wrong direction.

The bottom line is Magnuson-Stevens is working today. U.S. fisheries have been remarkably successful since the last reauthorization in 2007, and if it isn't broken, why should we try to fix it?

According to NOAA, 37 important fish stocks have been rebuilt to healthy population levels since 2000, and the number of stocks subject to overfishing has been cut nearly in half since 2006.

H.R. 1335 would eliminate critical conservation tools that have been essential to our recent success and would also undermine critical environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. I hope that we can work towards a compromise so that Magnuson-Stevens can be reauthorized in a bipartisan manner, as the last two bills were. Until then, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1335.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, the National Environmental Policy Act, also called NEPA, is a critically important law, not only for protecting the environment, but also for protecting the people's right to participate in government decisionmaking. 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 analysis 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 had 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--small D--law written and executed to help people protect their rights and freedoms. Our Founding Fathers would certainly be proud.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly respond to some of the comments made by the other side.

Federal agency responsibility for NEPA is effectively being eliminated by this law and an alternative, undefined process is being established hindering the public's ability to influence policies and protect their rights.

Stakeholders, including businesses and individuals, would get less consideration in the council process and would not have a way of voicing their concerns and influencing the directions of plans or projects that could threaten the environment or the livelihoods of these people. It is simply common sense that plans to manage our valuable resources be properly assessed before resources are harvested.

I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source