Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike a harmful and politically driven provision on the underlying bill that has the effect of limiting stakeholder input and curbing equal access to justice, a core constitutional principle in our Republic, and effectively removes an important check we have on arbitrary actions by Presidents and administrations.

Absent my language, the underlying bill would hand President Obama a blank slate in determining how we run our Western lands. My bill will restore that balance and allow civil society stakeholders and local residents to be able to challenge illegal Federal actions.

While I respect and appreciate the impetus for many parts of this bill and support them, particularly those aimed at incentivizing collaborative development management plans and fixing the flawed funding structure for wildfire response--very, very important in my district--the provision that I am striking in my amendment is truly a poison pill for many on my side of the aisle who care deeply about equal access to justice and many on the other side of the aisle who don't want to hand President Obama an unchecked control over Federal lands.

In districts like mine, which are made up of 62 percent Federal land, the Forest Service owns huge amounts of open space that we use, enjoy, is a driver of our tourism economy; we recreate as hikers, skiers, hunters, bikers; it is used commercially by loggers, utility providers, and many, many other groups.

I can attest to the fact that these groups, these stakeholders that I mentioned whose livelihood and enjoyment depend on these lands, are extremely valuable when it comes to providing practical, varied input into managing our Federal lands.

This bill, however, would discourage and limit the depth and diversity of public input by expediting the development of forest management plans while removing the legal venues that exist for protest after a management plan has been implemented, meaning not only does the provision, like the one I am trying to strike, cripple the transparency and effectiveness by limiting the form of expertise we have in planning our Federal lands, it also has the potential to repeal some critical rights, like the right to protest and legal recourse for potential wrongdoing.

The provisions I move to strike would effectively eliminate the ability of citizens, nonprofits, local residents, independent advocacy organizations, and others to file lawsuits against potentially illegal or improper forest management tools that the executive branch is using.

By creating a harmful bonding requirement, which would really exclude judicial access for everybody--except the very wealthiest corporations and people--and a prejudicial fee-shifting requirement that enables the government to act with impunity at the clear expense of the plaintiff, we really break down the core principle of equal access to justice, which is our right.

By prohibiting the courts from issuing any restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or injunctions pending repeal in cases of postdisaster operations after broadly defined events, we are only compounding the damage.

Again, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle's move to block the court's ability to make sound, thoughtful, and transparent decisions if the executive branch acts illegally really will come at the expense of our local stakeholders for those of us who live in and around Federal land.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I have many of my constituents who are living in holdings on Federal lands. What happens if Federal land management policy changes their rights-of-way and makes it harder to access where they live? Where are they supposed to come up with the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars that it would take to bond under this scenario to figure out whether what the Federal Government did was legal or not?

That is why we need to fix this, Mr. Chairman. And I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to defend the constitutional rights of families who live in and around Federal land.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source