Take Action:  Action Alerts | Action Alert Sign Up | Volunteer | Join or Give

URGENT! CALLS TO HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE NEEDED:

Urge Judiciary Members to oppose irresponsible and destructive "fire management" logging legislation!

On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 the House Judiciary Committee will consider Representative McInnis (R-CO) "Healthy Forests Restoration Act 2003" (HR 1904). The McInnis bill was scheduled to go to the floor tomorrow but has been postponed until next week as so the Judiciary Committee can consider the bill. It is unusual for the Judiciary Committee to consider a bill under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. However, due to the substantial changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, the repeal of the Appeals Reform Act, and the unprecedented changes in judicial review, the Judiciary Committee has urged that HR 1904 must go to the Committee for consideration.

Please call California's members of the Judiciary Committee (see list below) and URGE them to strike sections 104,105, 106, and 107 of HR 1904, and to OPPOSE the McInnis bill.

SECTION 104 CUTS THE HEART OUT OF NEPA: The McInnis bill seeks to eliminate the most important part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the requirement that alternatives to agency actions be considered. Under this provision, the Forest Service will be allowed to conduct large-scale, environmentally damaging logging projects without considering any alternatives, including taking "no action."

SECTION 105 REPEALS THE APPEALS REFORM ACT: The McInnis bill abolishes citizens' statutory right to appeal Forest Service hazardous fuels projects provided by the Appeals Reform Act of 1992. Instead, it simply directs the Forest Service to establish an undefined administrative process and gives the Forest Service unfettered discretion in designing the administrative process. Conceivably, the agency could give citizens only a few days to participate in the process, impose substantial filing fees or bonding requirements, allow projects to proceed before completion of the process, or deny other interested parties an opportunity to intervene or comment.

SECTION 106 IMPOSES SEVERE LIMITS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW: The McInnis bill imposes unreasonable deadlines, restrictions, and burdens on the judicial system for lawsuits challenging expedited fuel reduction projects.

1. Lawsuits would have to be filed within 15 days after the agency publishes notice of the project decision. This extremely short deadline would effectively preclude the option for citizens to administratively appeal agency decisions before having to go to court. Thus, more lawsuits would likely be filed, since litigation would be the only feasible way to contest an agency decision.

2. Judges would be expected to "expedite, to the maximum extent practicable" lawsuits challenging hazardous fuels projects and to issue final decisions within 100 days after the lawsuits are filed.

3. The bill imposes a 45-day limit on the duration of any preliminary injunction. Any renewal of the preliminary injunction by the court would require formal congressional notification. Thus, fuel reduction projects would, by law, be assigned top priority in the federal court system, above virtually all other civil and criminal cases.

SECTION 107 INTERFERES WITH OUR INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY: The McInnis bill seeks an astounding change in American legal standards by requiring courts to give "deference" to agency findings regarding the balance of harms in deciding whether to enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or a permanent injunction in ANY court challenge where the agency claims the action is necessary to reduce hazardous fuels. In other words, even if the evidence presented to a court clearly demonstrates that a project would cause immediate and substantial harm to water quality or endangered species or the agency is found to violate the law, a judge would have to defer to the agencies' claims of long-term benefit and the agency would be able to proceed. This would be a terrible precedent undermining the impartiality of the judicial system.

IF YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING DISTRICTS, PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY MAY 13th, AND URGE THEM TO STRIKE SECTIONS 104,105,106, AND 107 AND VOTE "NO" ON THE MCINNIS BILL.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren (D-16)
Phone: (202) 225-3072

Hon. Howard Berman (D-28)
Phone: (202) 225-4695

Hon. Adam Schiff (D-29)
Phone: (202) 225-4176

Hon. Maxine Waters (D-35)
Phone: (202) 225-2201

Hon. Linda Sanchez (D-39)
Phone: (202) 225-6676

To determine your congressional district and representative visit: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/cngplan/newtextdocument.htp