nepa_nafta_testimony_1993-14991b33105ca4ca.pdf

This 1993 testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works by the Center for International Environmental Law and the National Audubon Society argues that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to prepare a legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The authors contend that NAFTA constitutes a major federal action with significant environmental effects and that such a review is compatible with existing trade laws and the separation of powers doctrine.

• The authors argue that NEPA applies to NAFTA because the USTR is a federal agency, the approval of the agreement is a 'major federal action' and a recommendation for legislation, and the agreement will have significant effects on the human environment.
• The document cites a government 'Interagency Review of U.S.-Mexico Environmental Issues' to demonstrate NAFTA's potential negative impacts, including increased land transportation in the U.S.-Mexico border region affecting air quality and noise, severe impacts on aquatic wildlife habitats, and threats to approximately 50 endangered species and over 100 'candidate' species in Northern Mexico and the border region.
• The authors assert that the executive branch has a history of recognizing the responsibility to conduct Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for international agreements, citing examples such as the Montreal Protocol and the Compact of Free Association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
• The testimony claims there are no 'clear and unavoidable statutory conflicts' between NEPA and the Trade Acts that would make an EIS impossible, noting that both are essentially procedural in nature.
• The authors propose that a 'legislative' EIS (LEIS) is the appropriate tool for NAFTA and could be completed within the Clinton administration's schedule and fast-track Congressional procedures, noting that a similar LEIS for the Montreal Protocol was prepared in about two months.
• The document rejects the argument that the USTR is merely an extension of the President, noting that the USTR is appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and acted under a specific Congressional mandate during NAFTA negotiations.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (n.d.). nepa_nafta_testimony_1993-14991b33105ca4ca.pdf. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NEPA_NAFTA_Testimony_1993.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. nepa_nafta_testimony_1993-14991b33105ca4ca.pdf. n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NEPA_NAFTA_Testimony_1993.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=nepa_nafta_testimony_1993-14991b33105ca4ca.pdf |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NEPA_NAFTA_Testimony_1993.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallawndnepanaftatestimony199314991b33105ca4capdf, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{nepa\_nafta\_testimony\_1993-14991b33105ca4ca.pdf}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NEPA_NAFTA_Testimony_1993.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }