Sherwood Boehlert: “it is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary, but it is. The administration has announced its intention to propose…”

“it is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary, but it is. The administration has announced its intention to propose a series of changes to the roadless rule that would significantly reduce its scope and weaken its effectiveness. And it is moving forward with these changes even though the Forests Roads Working Group, a group of sportsmen's groups, has recommended leaving the rule as it is for now. So this amendment may be our last and only chance to save the roadless rule, one of the most significant land protections measures in recent decades. The roadless rule will protect watersheds, foster bio- diversity and enable future generations to appreciate untrammeled wildness. Now that is not to say that there are not legitimate arguments against the roadless rule. Members may oppose the roadless rule because they believe these areas should be logged or because of economic concerns or because of a philosophical objection to any limitation on the use of our national forests. But we are not hearing those arguments because they are not very popular and they do not have much emotional appeal. Instead, we are hearing arguments against the roadless rule that are, in a word, bogus. We are hearing arguments that run directly counter to the facts. We are hearing rhetoric that is literally incendiary, with pictures to match. We are hearing Members shout ``fire'' in a crowded legislative chamber. This is a dangerous tact for the opponents of the Inslee amendment.”