May 20, 2003
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) today blasted the passage of the Republican so-called Healthy Forest Restoration Act, H.R. 1904, which will jeopardize not only national forests but also tilt court decisions in favor of government agencies. The far-reaching implications of H.R. 1904 have sparked opposition from a diverse coalition, including national environmental, civil rights, disability, and women’s organizations.
H.R. 1904 will promote logging of older trees – actually the ones more resistant to fire. The bill will also force federal district and appellate courts to give lawsuits on forest issues priority over all others, and it attempts to pressure federal courts to issue final decisions on forestry challenges and appeals within days. The ruling also requires courts to give disproportionate weight to agencies in determining whether an injunction would be in the public interest. All in all, the Bush Administration, according to a recent Boston Globe editorial, “wants to use the threat of wildfires as an excuse to invite timber companies to cut down valuable old-growth trees in remote areas.”
“Rather than protecting national forests and communities, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act threatens our ecosystem and judicial system with far-reaching consequences,” said Lee. “The results are obvious. It would tip the scales of justice in favor of proponents of logging and set a dangerous precedent for favoring agencies when courts consider public interest issues that could affect disability, civil rights, and labor law, among other areas.”
“There are better solutions to preventing wildfires than increasing rampant logging and interfering with the judicial process,” said Lee.
In fact, a Democratic substitute, supported by major environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, would have protected communities within half a mile of communities on the “urban-wildland” interface from fires. It would have also protected sensitive lands and the National Environment Protection Act environmental review process. Finally, the Democratic alternative, which Republicans rejected, would have protected the rights of all citizens to participate in decisions on the stewardship of public lands, including local residents, recreational interests, and conservation groups.
###
Congresswoman Barbara Lee Condemns So-Called Healthy Forest Restoration Act
Bill instructs courts to give preference to bureaucrats
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) today blasted the passage of the Republican so-called Healthy Forest Restoration Act, H.R. 1904, which will jeopardize not only national forests but also tilt court decisions in favor of government agencies. The far-reaching implications of H.R. 1904 have sparked opposition from a diverse coalition, including national environmental, civil rights, disability, and women’s organizations.
H.R. 1904 will promote logging of older trees – actually the ones more resistant to fire. The bill will also force federal district and appellate courts to give lawsuits on forest issues priority over all others, and it attempts to pressure federal courts to issue final decisions on forestry challenges and appeals within days. The ruling also requires courts to give disproportionate weight to agencies in determining whether an injunction would be in the public interest. All in all, the Bush Administration, according to a recent Boston Globe editorial, “wants to use the threat of wildfires as an excuse to invite timber companies to cut down valuable old-growth trees in remote areas.”
“Rather than protecting national forests and communities, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act threatens our ecosystem and judicial system with far-reaching consequences,” said Lee. “The results are obvious. It would tip the scales of justice in favor of proponents of logging and set a dangerous precedent for favoring agencies when courts consider public interest issues that could affect disability, civil rights, and labor law, among other areas.”
“There are better solutions to preventing wildfires than increasing rampant logging and interfering with the judicial process,” said Lee.
In fact, a Democratic substitute, supported by major environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, would have protected communities within half a mile of communities on the “urban-wildland” interface from fires. It would have also protected sensitive lands and the National Environment Protection Act environmental review process. Finally, the Democratic alternative, which Republicans rejected, would have protected the rights of all citizens to participate in decisions on the stewardship of public lands, including local residents, recreational interests, and conservation groups.
###