SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
u.s. house of representatives
The Fix Our Forests Act Is a Logging Bill Disguised as a Firefighting Bill
If passed, it would open millions of acres of forests to logging without scientific review or citizen input. A better name for this legislations would be the Fix It So We Can Log Without Citizen Oversight Act.
Feb 10, 2025
It comes in a box with a picture of a fire extinguisher on the front. Below it the words: Guaranteed to stop wildfires. But when you open it up there’s a chainsaw inside. Tucked beside it is a piece a piece of paper saying, “Now without citizen overview!”
That’s the Fix Our Forests Act, a logging bill disguised as a firefighting bill. The tell is in the numerous and creative ways it would obstruct citizen input, from delaying citizen review until after the trees are cut to reducing the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits from six months to 120 days, seriously straining the ability of small citizen groups to apply legal restraint. It waives National Environmental Policy Act protections on fire-sheds as large as 250,000 square acres and allows loggings to proceed even if courts find the logging plan violates the law. There are no limits on the size and age of trees that can be cut, and the language is so vague that even clear cuts could qualify as “fuels treatment.” If passed, it would open millions of acres of forests to logging without scientific review or citizen input. A better name for this legislations would be the Fix It So We Can Log Without Citizen Oversight Act.
Introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), and having passed in the House, it’s now being rushed through the Senate in an attempt to capitalize on the heightened fire concern surrounding the tragic LA fires. A vote is expected any day now.
If our forests are broken, might it be the successive rounds of logging trucks and roads, chainsaws and feller bunchers, herbicidal treatments and industrial replanting of greenhouse-grown monocrops that did the breaking?
The bill claims to “protect communities by expediting environmental analyses, reducing frivolous lawsuits, and increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration projects.” But if protecting communities were really the goal, this bill would pour resources into the only methods proven to do that: hardening homes and defending immediate space.
Most homes don’t catch fire directly from flames themselves, but from embers blown ahead of a fire. Simple measures like screening vents, covering gutters, and pruning vegetation directly around buildings dramatically improve their fire resilience. Thinning vegetation in the immediate surroundings, within 100 feet or so of the dwelling, can also help. These were among the recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. But rather than heed those recommendations by investing in boots on the ground to harden homes and educate communities, the bill diverts resources to backcountry logging.
The U.S. Forest Service has spent years making the argument that “mechanical treatment” of forests reduces wildfire. Independent research, however, comes to different conclusions, that thinning harms the forest and actually increases the very conditions that favor fire—heat, dryness, and wind. The reasons are fairly obvious. For instance, removing trees makes it harder for forests to slow wind, increasing the wind speeds of potential fires and thus the speed of spread. It also allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor, heating up the ground. Even more importantly, trees don’t just stand around soaking up sunlight, they also cool and hydrate their surroundings. It’s called transpiration, and can be understood as a kind of sweating, just like we do to keep cool in the sun. A single tree can have the cooling power of up to 10 air conditioners.
But that really is just the beginning. Those trees also help make rain. By sweating water vapor they not only cool the air, they deliver water vapor to the sky, feeding the formation of clouds. Even more remarkable, they seed that vapor with biochemicals such as terpenes (the forest scent) and other bits of biota that provide the grains for eventual rain drops to condense around. Forests make clouds. Those clouds then rain down, watering other forests, hydrating soil and vegetation, and increasing resilience to wildfire.
In other words, what the Fix our Forests Act calls dangerous fuels are also air conditioners and humidifiers, rain makers and rain catchers, as their needles gather and slow the falling of rain, allowing it to seep into the ground and make its way to aquifers, which will prove critical during the dry season. Of course, older, deeply rooted trees are best able to tap this water, but there are no protections for them in the Fix Our Forests Act.
Given that the concern is fire, it’s remarkable how little this legislation ever mentions water, its antidote. Though I did find, in section 119, under “Watershed Condition Framework Technical Corrections,” calls to strike the word “protection” from watershed provisions in a previous, similar bill, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, under George W. Bush. (To see a short, simple demonstration of how plant moisture effects flammability, watch this.)
Perhaps the problems with this bill are explained by the first word of the bill’s title: “Fix.” You can fix a car. You can fix a broken plate. But can you “fix” a forest? Can you “fix” a living ecosystem of infinite complexity? Such language represents an outdated way of thinking about the living world around us, and marks the very kind of thinking that’s gotten into this mess in the first place. And one needs to ask: If our forests are broken, might it be the successive rounds of logging trucks and roads, chainsaws and feller bunchers, herbicidal treatments and industrial replanting of greenhouse-grown monocrops that did the breaking?
Yes, there are instances where careful thinning of small trees and undergrowth is indicated, such as right around built communities or in industrial plantations planted too densely. But such measured action doesn’t need this bill, and this bill isn’t about such measured action. Rather, as put by Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations with Defenders of Wildlife, the bill “will do little of anything to combat fires and instead plays favorites with the timber industry which is hungry to consume more of our forests—removing large fire-resilient trees and devastating the lands and species which call them home.”
As mentioned, the bill is moving quickly. Last minute citizen outcry is the only thing standing in its way.
The following Senators have been identified as key votes: John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Angus King ((-Maine), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Will See a Woman President in Our Lifetimes
Despite VP Harris’ loss, the results of this election cycle proved that investing in women is not only central to creating a more representative government; it’s also a strong electoral strategy.
Jan 19, 2025
It’s crushing to witness the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, a man who built his campaign, and his entire political career at large, on hatred, division, and lies.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss was a deeply devastating one for so many of us—and certainly one of the hardest I’ve had to swallow throughout my career in Democratic politics—but skepticism about the viability of a woman becoming president in our lifetimes has added even further insult to injury.
As the president of EMILYs List, one thing I know with certainty is this: Underestimating the strength of women candidates based on the outcome of the presidential race is a grave mistake. The results of this election cycle proved that investing in women is not only central to creating a more representative government; it’s also a strong electoral strategy.
Men lose campaigns all the time, particularly in the last 40 years as EMILYs List has grown, yet we never question whether another man can win in the future.
Across the ballot this year, women candidates were key to winning races under even the most difficult of circumstances and up against tremendous headwinds. Democratic women held onto highly competitive Senate seats in three battleground states that were won by Trump and won in four House districts that Trump carried. They flipped key Republican-held House seats from coast to coast—in Oregon’s 5th and New York’s 4th congressional districts. They broke Republican supermajorities in states across the country, and they protected and flipped vital state Supreme Court seats that are going to be essential to protecting our freedoms in years to come.
It’s clear: Women have what it takes to win. And Americans are ready and fired up to elect them.
That’s because voters know who crafts our policy matters. Women candidates bring personal perspectives and professional experiences that make a difference on the campaign trail and in our government. Whether it’s Lisa Blunt Rochester’s personal connection to IVF, Lucy McBath losing her son to gun violence, or Lauren Underwood’s experience as a public health expert—their deep understanding of these issues and their deep-rooted commitment to enacting change shapes policy in ways that better the lives of their constituents. When these women shared their stories on the campaign trail this year, voters responded by turning out in their favor.
Pundits will try to diminish the practicality of running Democratic women candidates for president in the future, and voters may feel disillusioned as they watch Donald Trump be sworn in. So we must be clear about the truth surrounding the presidential race: Kamala Harris is the reason that the election was as close as it was. At a time when Democrats were poised to lose big, her leadership galvanized millions of previously apathetic voters and evened the playing field for our party amid an immensely challenging environment.
Immediately after announcing her candidacy, Harris shattered fundraising records, hauling in $81 million in her first 24 hours as the nominee. She erased the enthusiasm gap among critical voters—creating a 56-point jump in young women’s motivation to vote and a 68% increase in motivation to vote among women in battleground states. She drove massive spikes across voter registration and volunteer sign-ups. And while it wasn’t enough to overcome the challenges she inherited, her ability to quickly narrow Democrats’ deficits against Donald Trump is a testament to the strength of women candidates and the continued need to invest in their leadership.
Men lose campaigns all the time, particularly in the last 40 years as EMILYs List has grown, yet we never question whether another man can win in the future. We don’t debate their electability or the shortcomings of their gender—and we don’t let those limitations stand between them and the highest levels of our government.
To let gendered biases overshadow women’s extensive qualifications, their ability to best represent our communities, and their demonstrable strength as candidates, is a disservice to the American people and to our future. Misconceptions about women’s electability become a self-fulfilling prophecy only if we let them.
Kamala Harris herself said it best: It hurts to break glass ceilings. But just because we haven’t broken our nation’s highest and hardest glass ceiling yet doesn’t mean we won’t.
The women who won in 2024 reinforced a vital lesson: investing in women candidates is a winning strategy for the Democratic Party. So now is not the time to doubt, question, or give up on them. It’s time to double down on them—because women are our best pathway to taking back power. And with their leadership, we will undoubtedly shatter our nation’s last glass ceiling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Group Launches House Recruitment Drive to Defeat Corporate Dems
"Our mission is clear: We must usher in a new generation in the Democratic Party, led for and by the working class, to take on billionaires and corporate power," said the head of Justice Democrats.
Jan 14, 2025
The progressive political action committee Justice Democrats on Tuesday launched a 50-state recruitment effort "seeking nominations of everyday, working-class people to run for Congress after a cycle of unprecedented spending from the billionaire class and right-wing super PACs in Democratic primaries."
Justice Democrats, which "helped recruit and elect members of the Squad to Congress, will recruit the next generation of primary challengers in Democratic primaries in open seats and blue districts against Democratic incumbents who are out of touch with their constituents," the group said in a statement.
As Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi put it in a
Politico interview published Tuesday, "There is something wrong with this party as a whole right now, and it's time to clean up shop in this Democratic Party."
Democrats are still reeling from their loss of the White House and Senate and failure to reclaim the House of Representatives in November's elections, in which numerous critics attributed Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat by Republican President-elect Donald Trump to a failure to connect with working-class voters.
"To be the party of the working class, we need more working-class leaders in power," Justice Democrats executive director Alexandra Rojas asserted Tuesday. "Leaders like the elected Justice Democrats in Congress have shown us another way of doing politics is possible and represent the promise of uniting our fractured nation into a multiracial democracy where everyone thrives and no one is left behind."
The 119th Congress is one of the richest & oldest ever. Today, we officially launch our 2026 candidate recruitment–working class communities deserve working class leaders in Congress. Nominate someone you know to take our power back from billionaires: jdems.us/nominate
[image or embed]
— Justice Democrats (@justicedemocrats.bsky.social) January 14, 2025 at 6:14 AM
"It's time to end the era of career politicians and the corrupt campaign finance laws that keep them in power," Rojas added. "Our mission is clear: We must usher in a new generation in the Democratic Party, led for and by the working class, to take on billionaires and corporate power. The Democratic Party can only win back working-class voters with real, working-class leaders."
Justice Democrats currently serving in the House of Representatives are: Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (Texas) and Reps. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).
Other groups including Sunrise Movement have also launched efforts to push the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction, including by reviving a ban on corporate lobbyist donations to the Democratic National Committee and banning super PAC spending in Democratic primaries.
This, after special interests led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Wall Street-backed cryptocurrency lobbyists poured $30 million into just two Democratic House primaries to oust working-class incumbents Cori Bush (Mo.) and Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.).
Some congressional Democrats have taken these defeats as a sign that "we might have swung the pendulum too far to the left," as Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) toldNOTUS Tuesday.
However, Justice Democrats is urging Democratic lawmakers and candidates to eschew pressure to move rightward out of fear of further losses and instead pursue policies that will win back working-class voters.
"Until party leadership leads the way to take big money out of politics, ends the billionaire influence over our elections and policies, and puts the needs of working-class people back at the center of its agenda, voters will see its populist platitudes as lip service," said the group, which vowed to "continue to lead the charge to show that with working-class voices in Congress, we can fight for universal healthcare, create millions of union jobs, end taxpayer funding for endless wars and genocide abroad, and lower costs for everyday people nationwide."
As Andrabi and Rojas wrote for Zeteo Tuesday: "A debate is taking place on how the party should move forward: Will we finally begin to be the party of the multiracial working class and embrace a new generation of leaders like the Justice Democrats in Congress? Or will we double down on becoming Republican-lite by cozying up with the wealthy elite and fall into the GOP's divide-and-conquer strategy, targeting our most vulnerable communities?"
"The choice is up to us—the everyday people our politicians are elected to serve," they added. "We can let the billionaire class and Democratic leadership handpick corporate Democrats who will do their bidding or we can recruit and empower the working class instead."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular