James Davis: “the argument which we just heard in opposition to the amendment is that as a matter of public safety we should not…”

“the argument which we just heard in opposition to the amendment is that as a matter of public safety we should not continue to follow the Clinton roadless rule. I would like to share some facts which I think undermine that argument. Ninety-eight percent of the fires that have occurred in roadless areas have been controlled while they are small. On the other hand, the Forest Service has found that fires are twice as likely to occur in roaded and log areas. Only 14 percent of roadless areas are considered at high risk for potentially devastating wildfires. There is no public safety argument to justify not having restrictions on building roads. What really is at stake here, as was outlined by Taxpayers for Common Sense, is that our tax dollars throughout the United States are being used to subsidize the creation of these roads and national forests not for safety purposes, but to subsidize transportation for the timber industry that is harvesting timber in these parks. Now, those of my colleagues who represent parts of the country whose economies benefit from harvesting timber do not need to apologize to fight for those jobs, but what my colleagues are not entitled to is to ask the rest of the country to subsidize those businesses.”