U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77-615 PS 2002

ECO-TERRORISM AND LAWLESSNESS ON THE NATIONAL

FORESTS

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND

FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

February 12, 2002

Serial No. 107-83

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff

Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman

JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

Anibal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on February 12, 2002 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Acevedo-Vila ́, Hon. Anibal, a Delegate in Congress from Puerto Rico,

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 116

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 8

Hooley, Hon. Darlene, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Inslee, Hon. Jay, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Washington .................................................................................................... 4

McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Nethercutt, Hon. George, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the

State of Washington ..................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Otter, Hon. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho, Prepared statement of .................................................................. 86

Letter from the Federated Women in Timber submitted for the

record ...................................................................................................... 87

Rahall, Hon. Nick J. II, a Representative in Congress from the State

of West Virginia ............................................................................................ 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Statement of Witnesses:

Berman, Richard B., Executive Director, The Center for Consumer

Freedom ......................................................................................................... 64

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66

Flora, Gloria, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility ............. 95

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 96

Hicks, Michael S., Northwest Oregon Area Logging Manager, Boise

Cascade Corporation ..................................................................................... 57

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 58

Jarboe, James F., Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism

Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington. D.C. .................. 48

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49

Pendleton, Dr. Michael R., Government Accountability Project ................... 102

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103

Rosebraugh, Craig, Former Press Officer, Earth Liberation Front .............. 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 29

Wasley, William F., Director, Law Enforcement and Investigations,

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ........................................ 93

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 93

Wharton, Porter, III, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Vail Resorts,

Inc. ................................................................................................................. 54

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55

Page

IV

Additional materials supplied:

Conn, P. Michael, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research and Development, Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, Oregon Health

Sciences University, Letter and statement submitted for the record ....... 120

Elde, Robert, Dean, College of Biological Sciences, University of

Minnesota, Statement submitted for the record ........................................ 118

Kerr, Jeffrey S., General Counsel and Director of Corporate Affairs,

PETA Foundation, Letter submitted for the record ................................... 122

Nichols, Nick, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Nichols-Dezenhall

Communications Management Group, Statement submitted for the

record ............................................................................................................. 129

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ECO-TERRORISM

AND LAWLESSNESS ON THE NATIONAL

FORESTS

Tuesday, February 12, 2002

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Committee on Resources

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m., in room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis,

[Chairman of the Subcommittee], presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

COLORADO

Mr. MCINNIS. The Committee will come to order. Subcommittee

on Forests and Forest Health is now in order. Under Committee

Rule 4(g) the Chairman and ranking member can make opening

statements. In addition, we are recognizing the ranking member of

the whole Committee, and obviously, the Chairman of the whole

Committee, for statements as well. If any other members of the

Committee have statements, they can be included in the hearing

record under unanimous consent. I will begin with my opening remarks.

Today the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health is conducting a hearing to explore the growing threat of eco-terrorism

and lawlessness on our national forests. The hearing’s principal

focus will be on the violent and increasingly frequent attacks of environmental terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front and

the Animal Liberation Front. However, we will also hear from a

panel of witnesses focusing on the very real problem of timber theft

and intimidation of Federal land managers on national forests.

It is the opinion of the Chair of this Subcommittee that

terrorism, no matter for what message, is unacceptable. It is not

the proper way to send a message. Some may try and argue that

one set of issues speaking of the environmental set or the timber

theft is more important than the other. But the fact is both sets

of issues are very serious and both merit the examination of this

Subcommittee. I look forward to the important dialogue we are

going to have today.

2

For the better part of a decade ELF and ALF and other rogue

elements in the environmental movement have used brute force, intimidation and violence to promote an agenda that can only be described as radical. They attack Government buildings, homes, businesses and research labs with fire bombs, Molotov cocktails and

timed-detonation devices. And I would urge any of you that would

like, go ahead and take a look at the website. On the front of the

web page it shows you how to use a detonation device. When it

comes to the extensive violence on national forests, ELF’s objective

is as simple as it is unsettling, to create an overpowering aura of

fear and anxiety that scares the American people off their forests

or their right to use their forests.

Today, some 10 years and many million of dollars in destruction

after its emergence, the Earth Liberation Front has partially succeeded in achieving that objective in some parts of the country.

People who legitimately work, live and play in these wild places

now have no choice but to look over their shoulder in fear of a

shadowy terror group like ELF.

Colleagues, the individuals that make up these terror groups are

not cut from the same fabric as the nature-loving hippies of my

youth. It would be a serious mistake for anyone to dismiss these

hard-liners as just misguided young people or trust-fund babies

with nothing better to do. These people are hardened criminals.

They are dangerous. They are well funded. They are savvy, sophisticated and stealthy. And if their violence continues to escalate, it

is only a matter of time before their parade of terror results in loss

of human life.

I would like to take a moment to show a brief video clip that visually demonstrates the kind of violence that we are talking about.

[Video clip shown about the Earth Liberation Front.]

Mr. MCINNIS. What is ominous for the ELFs and ALFs of this

world is the fact that every mainstream environmental organization I contacted in conjunction with this hearing, groups like the

National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and many others, publicly condemned the acts of militant environmental groups. These

public statements make it clear that the Earth Liberation Front

and other like-minded organizations are on an island all by themselves. ELF’s self-styled Robin-Hood mystique is under assault

from every direction, even from the individuals who have spent

their lives promoting environmental protection and stewardship.

After the Vail fire in October 1998, a statement released by

Craig Rosebraugh, then spokesman for ELF, who has been subpoenaed to testify here today, warned America that the, quote, ‘‘Elves

were watching,’’ unquote. Well, Mr. Rosebraugh, I can tell you that

today, when it comes to ELF and ALF, the FBI is watching, state

and local law enforcement is watching, Congress is watching, the

mainstream environmental group is watching, and the public is

now fully engaged in watching too.

It is with this that I would like to remind those in attendance

that this is not the time or venue for outbursts or protests. I know

that many of you are passionate about an issue before this panel

today, but this Subcommittee, our witnesses and those in the audience, will observe proper decorum. Thank you.

3

[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Forests and Forest Health

Today the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health is conducting a hearing

to explore the growing threat of eco-terrorism and lawlessness on our National

Forests. The hearing’s principal focus will be on the violent and increasingly frequent attacks of environmental terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front and

Animal Liberation Front. We will also hear from a panel of witnesses focusing on

the very real problem of timber theft and the intimidation of federal land managers

on the National Forests. Some may try to argue that one set of issues is more important than the other, but the fact is, both sets of issues are very serious and both

merit the examination of this Subcommittee. I look forward to this important dialogue.

For the better part of a decade, ELF, ALF and other rogue elements in the environmental movement have used brute-force-intimidation and violence to promote an

agenda that can only be described as radical. They attack government buildings and

homes and businesses and research labs with firebombs, Molotov-cocktails and

timed detonation devices. When it comes to their extensive violence on the national

forests, ELF’s objective is as simple as it is unsettling: to create an overpowering

aura of fear and anxiety that scares the American people off of their forests.

Today, some 10 years and many millions of dollars in destruction after its emergence, the Earth Liberation Front has partially succeeded in achieving that objective in some parts of the country. People who legitimately work, live and play in

these wild places now have no choice but to look over their shoulder in fear of shadowy terror groups like ELF.

Colleagues, the individuals that make-up these terror groups are not cut from the

same fabric as the nature loving hippies of my youth. It would be a serious mistake

for anyone to dismiss these hard-liners as just misguided college kids, or trust fund

babies with nothing better to do. These people are hardened criminals. They are

dangerous. They are well funded. They are savvy, sophisticated and stealth. And if

their violence continues to escalate, it is only a matter of time before their parade

of terror results in lost human life.

Up until the present, ELF’s and ALF’s campaign of terror has largely succeeded

in avoiding the long arm of justice. Nearly every act of eco-terrorism committed in

the last decade remains unsolved, and too often the trail leading to ELF and ALF

has grown cold. If there is a message today for local, state and federal law enforcement, it is this: domestic environmental terrorism must continue to be a national

priority. These cases need to be solved.

But while the perpetrators of eco-terrorist attacks have escaped justice more often

than not, there are promising signs that the tide is beginning to turn, and the noose

is beginning to tighten. Just yesterday, a man was sentenced to 18 years in prison

for firebombing seven large homes under construction in the Phoenix area in 1999

and 2000. Earlier this year, two known members of the Animal Liberation Front

were sentenced to prison terms after police officers caught them making a bomb in

a parking lot after midnight. Last year, a man believed to be associated with ALF

was sentenced to 22 years in prison for his role in firebombing a Eugene, Oregon

car dealership.

For law enforcement, these are substantial accomplishments. For members of ELF

and ALF still intent on terrorizing American communities, these long prison sentences provide an ominous warning of what happens when you get caught.

Just as ominous for the ELF’s and ALF’s of this world is the fact that every mainstream environmental organization I contacted in conjunction with this hearing—

groups like the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and many others—publicly eschewed

and condemned the tactics of militant environmental groups. These public statements make it clear that the Earth Liberation Front and other like-minded organizations are on an island all by themselves. ELF’s self-styled Robin Hood mystique

is under assault from every direction, even from individuals who have spent their

lives promoting environmental protection and stewardship.

After the Vail fire in October 1998, a statement released by Craig Rosebraugh,

then Spokesperson for ELF who has been subpoenaed to testify here today, warned

America that the ‘‘Elves were watching.’’ Well, Mr. Rosebraugh, I can tell you today

that, when it comes to ELF and ALF, the FBI is watching, state and local law enforcement is watching, Congress is watching, the mainstream environmental movement is watching, and the public is now fully engaged and watching too.

4

It is with this that I would like to remind those in attendance that this is not

the time or the venue for outbursts or protests. I know that many of you are passionate about the issue before this panel today, but this Subcommittee, our witnesses and those in the audience will observe proper decorum. Those who feel compelled to disrupt today’s proceeding will be immediately removed.

Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. I now recognize the gentleman from Washington,

Mr. Inslee.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First I would ask unanimous

consent to include in the record the statement of Nick Rahall, if I

may.

Mr. MCINNIS. Without objection.

Mr. INSLEE. Even better, we are going to have Mr. Rahall live,

which is certainly a treat.

Mr. MCINNIS. You may proceed.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, today we are going to hear about acts of

violence from people all across the political spectrum, left to right,

pro environment, those who are concerned about environmental

protection. And they will come from various parts of the country

and a very wide spectrum of political beliefs.

But each one of them involved in that violence will have one

thing in common, and that is that they have decided to abandon

democracy and embrace violence, and in that decision, they are all

wrong. And I believe we have a bipartisan consensus today on that

score and on that belief. And that I hope today that our ultimate

goal is to recognize that all these sources of violence are equally

culpable and it is equally important for us to find a way to stop

it.

And the reason I say that, if you look at these two pictures up

here—a picture that Mr. McInnis provided—in the back of the

Oregon arson, showing destruction of a building. Then you look up

here, and if you look at this picture of the bombed U.S. Forest

Service office in Carson City, Nevada, apparently by someone who

was disenchanted with the environmental action of the Forest

Service, neither one of those can be distinguished as to the fact

that they are both outrageous and unacceptable violence, because

the victims of violence don’t know any particular political philosophy.

So it is my hope that today we go through the gamut of violent

acts from all sides of the political spectrum to decry them and to

figure out how to stop them.

Now, let me address if I can, first what provoked Mr. McInnis

holding this hearing, and that is some of the violence from those

who believe that the U.S. Government is not doing enough to protect environmental quality. To them I would say there is a reason

for frustration for Federal Government inaction on the environment. There is reason for frustration of the Federal Government

abandoning its commitment to the Roadless Area policy, but it is

not an excuse for violence. There is a reason for frustration for the

U.S. Government failing to adopt meaningful environmental

5

standards in mining law, but it is not an excuse for violence. There

is a reason for frustration for the administration attempting to roll

back protections against arsenic and clean water, but it is not a

reason for violence.

Where would we have been if Martin Luther King decided that

violence was the answer rather than instructing and inflaming the

moral indignation of the Nation? I don’t think we would have been

as far down the road to equality that we are.

And I would urge those who have been involved in that route

hopefully to think about it, because I have been a person fighting

here and a lot of other places to try to encourage environmental

protection, and I can tell folks involved in that violence, it is not

effective in our agenda, it is not effective in trying to protect our

Federal forests. It is simply ineffective, and I hope that they will

consider that.

But there is another type of violence from a different direction

that is going on in our forests. We have something over about

200,000 acts of criminality and various incidents reported in the

Forest Service a year, and they come from a variety of sources. But

a significant number of those are from people who believe that the

Federal Government should not be acting as vigorously as they do

in protecting environmental standards, and we will talk about

some of those.

We will hear from Gloria Flora, a ranger from the HumboldtToiyabe Forest, about what she had to go through when she was

enforcing the law.

We will hear about the Santa Fe National Forest, where in May

2000, a law enforcement officer patrolling the Pecos Canyon during

a fire restriction period, was dragged out of his car, beaten and viciously assaulted on the pavement by four men, who apparently believed that the Federal Government had no business protecting

Federal Government property. The officer underwent 5 hours of

surgery and was in intensive care for several days. We will hear

about that violence.

We will hear about the Mark Twain National Forest, where on

July 31st, 1997 a woman monitoring water quality was beaten and

tied up, her van was smashed, by individuals posing as television

crew. There are folks coming from a different angle, and we will

hear about that nature of violence as well.

And we will also hear about an ongoing—I am looking for the

right language to describe just a pattern of criminality of the repeated theft of America’s trees. And this is really the soft underbelly of our Forest Service policy, and I think is a silent disease in

our national forests. We talk about the pests in our national

forests. We will be talking today about this incredible problem of

timber theft, where last year folks stole 40 red cedars from the

Olympic National Forest in the State of Washington, which is just

one of perhaps up to $100 million worth of theft of America’s trees.

So, Mr. Chair, I appreciate your opening this Committee up to

our broad work today, and look forward to people’s testimony.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rahall.

6

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK J. RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend you for

agreeing to expand the scope of this hearing to include what I view

as two very real forms of terrorism. One is threats against

employees of our Federal land management agencies, and the theft

of our public resources, as the ranking member, Mr. Inslee, has

just referred to, such as valuable timber from our National Forest

System lands.

It is unfortunate, but it is true, that all too often American citizens who are serving their country as dedicated public servants

working in the Forest Service, the BLM and National Park Service,

and the Fish and Wildlife Service, have been subjected to harassment, intimidation and mental and physical abuse during the discharge of their duties. This has occurred primarily in the western

states and it is often perpetrated by groups and individuals associated with radical right-wing causes.

We as lawmakers, and as a Nation, should do more to protect

Federal employees who face hostile working conditions. This type

of treatment of Federal land managers is certainly alien to the

areas that I have the privilege of representing in the Congress.

For instance, in Fayette County in West Virginia, the superintendent of the National Park Service’s New River Gorge National

River once served as the president of the local chamber of commerce. He was that popular and respected in the community, as

were all superintendents of that particular park unit. And this may

come as a surprise to many of my western colleagues, but in

Williamson, West Virginia the mayor presented the key of the city

to BLM employees for their outstanding work on a project.

Certainly since 9-11 we have all gained a greater appreciation of

the brave and selfless service provided to us all every day by our

fire and police departments and by our National Guard. And I believe we need to have that same appreciation for those in the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, who on a daily basis are in

the field on the front lines, so to speak, charged with upholding the

laws of this land. And in fact, it is many of these same employees

who are now also being called upon to help with homeland security.

As to the issue of theft of public resources, most of us have heard

the old saying about not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Well, these days this is because a good many of the trees are being

stolen. The growth of illegal tree cutting in our national forests

warrants a sustained and forceful response. Recently, vandals

felled more than 40 old-growth red cedars in Washington’s Olympic

National Forest. They did this to support their drug abuse habit.

In fact, the Forest Service there estimates that 99 percent of these

thefts are associated with drugs. We must not allow this practice

of stealing from taxpayers to continue, and it is occurring not only

in the west. In the Monongahela National Forest in my home State

of West Virginia, last year a timber rustling ring stole about

$250,000 worth of top-quality cherry trees.

While I am not aware of a concise estimate, the American people

are literally losing millions of dollars of their resources as a result

of these activities.

7

Terrorism comes in many forms. There is no doubt about it. Robbing future generations of Americans of the splendor and the grandeur of publicly held natural resources is in my book a form of

terrorism.

It is all together fitting and proper that this hearing is being

held on Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. In 1862 he said in an address

to Congress, and I quote: ‘‘The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new,

so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.’’

Although the occasion is quite different today, these words are

quite applicable.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, especially

our three distinguished colleagues.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding time to me.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II, Ranking Democrat,

Committee on Resources

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to express my appreciation to your agreeing to

expand the scope of this hearing to include what I view is as two very real forms

of terrorism; threats against employees of our federal land management agencies,

and the theft of the public’s resources, such as valuable timber, from National

Forest System lands.

It is unfortunate, but true, that all too often American citizens who are serving

their country as public servants working in the Forest Service, the BLM, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, and mental and physical abuse during the discharge of their duties. This has occurred primarily in the western states, and is often perpetrated by

groups and individuals associated with radical right-wing causes.

We as lawmakers, and as a Nation, should do more to protect federal employees

who face hostile working conditions. This type of treatment of federal land managers is certainly alien to the area I have the privilege of representing in the Congress.

For instance, in Fayette County, West Virginia, the superintendent of the National Park Service’s New River Gorge National River once served as the president

of the local chamber of commerce. He was that popular and respected in the community, as have all of the superintendents of that particular park unit. And this may

come as a surprise to some of my western colleagues, but in Williamson, West Virginia, the mayor presented the key to the city to two BLM employees for their outstanding work on a project.

Certainly, since 9–11, we have all gained a greater appreciation of the brave and

selfless service provided to us all, every day, by our fire and police departments, and

by our National Guard. I believe we need to have that same appreciation for those

in the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture who, on a daily basis, are in the

field charged with upholding the laws of this land. And in fact, it is many of these

same employees who are now also being called upon to help with homeland security.

As to the issue of theft of public resources, most of us have heard the old saying

about not being able to see the forest for the trees. Well, these days, that is because

a good many of the trees are being stolen.

The growth in illegal tree-cutting in our National Forests warrants a sustained

and forceful response. Recently, vandals felled more than 40 old-growth red cedars

in Washington’s Olympic National Forest. They did this to support their drug abuse

habit. In fact, the Forest Service there estimates that 99% of thefts are associated

with drugs. We must not allow this practice of stealing from taxpayers to continue.

And it is not occurring only in the West. In the Monongahela National Forest in

my home State, last year a timber rustling ring stole about $250,000 worth of topquality cherry trees.

While I am not aware of a concise estimate, the American people are literally losing millions of dollars of their resources as a result of these activities.

8

Terrorism comes in many forms. Robbing future generations of Americans of the

splendor and grandeur of publicly held natural resources is in my book a form of

terrorism.

It is altogether fitting and proper that this hearing is being held on Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. In 1862, he said in an address to Congress:

‘‘The dogmas of the quite past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The

occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise—with the occasion.

As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must

disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.’’

Although the occasion is quite different, those words are applicable today.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Rahall.

And Chairman of the whole Committee, Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to associate

my remarks with yours and Mr. Inslee, and Mr. Rahall, what has

been said.

You know that over 40 years ago I really got ticked off at the

Farmington City Council where I lived, and those guys made me

so mad the way they were handling the water system. You know

what I did? I ran for the City Council. And guess what? I became

the water commissioner, and so, if you don’t like it, do something

about it. So that is the system we work in. Our system is if you

don’t like something, there is a proper way to do it in America, and

Mr. Inslee correctly points out about things that are frustrating.

They are frustrating on both sides. And so that is why most of us

that are sitting up on this dais are here today, because we were

very frustrated with something that occurred, and so we wanted to

make a change.

We can stand and look at C-SPAN, every day looking at C-SPAN.

One of us is going to get up, and we are going to scream and shout

and make all kinds of comments about something that is wrong,

and doggone it, we want to change it. But in America to get it

done, you have to work within the system. That is the way it

works.

And so we come in here. As a past military person years ago during the Korean War, I am now the third-ranking man on the

Armed Services Committee, and I would like to see some things

changed that I think are better for the enlisted men and the junior

officers, but the way to do it is within the system.

You know our Constitution starts by saying ‘‘We the people,’’ and

that is what it is really serious about; it is the people that run this

show, and we are responsible to you. We are responsible to the

people. And all this comes down to the majority of people, and we

see how people vote and what they say, and if they like us they

keep us in. And so we just can’t go off on our own and do what

we want to do.

I was down in the White House recently as one of the senior

members of the Armed Services Committee, and the President said

to the new Homeland Security man, Governor Ridge, he said, ‘‘Terrorism is terrorism wherever it is found, and we are going to stamp

9

it out,’’ because we had made the point, because this Committee is

constantly getting these areas.

It was brought up on this film that you showed, Mr. Chairman,

that the Salt Lake City, my home state, was getting more hits than

a lot of them, and I have known a lot of those people. I have represented a lot of them. Up there in what is called Morgan County,

we have had somebody throw out dozens of mink, those little animals that run around. And guess what? They really didn’t do them

any favors because the coyotes had most of them eaten by the next

morning. But if that made somebody happy that those mink were

thrown out, so be it. I have seen a lot of situations like that. I have

often wondered maybe someone who does that should take into consideration the biblical term of what is the measure of creation of

that animal? And maybe the measure of creation of that animal is

something—if someone wants to wear a mink coat, I think it is

their privilege to do that. I don’t know what else you would use

them for.

Anyway, it comes down to the idea that this Government moves

kind of slow sometimes. Its justice moves slow. And some groups

start out and they become an irritant. And they are irritated by the

local cities. And then they become more than an irritant, and then

they start breaking laws. And so slowly and slowly, justice grinds

out. And then some of those very same people find themselves in

a terrible situation. They didn’t mean to do that. They were just

frustrated, as Mr. Inslee pointed out, but they went the wrong way

to get it done. And that frustration led to something that got them

in trouble with the law, and pretty soon they get in front of a judge

or a jury, and before long, they are looking out of the wrong side

of the bars.

And then they sometimes have a chance to reflect and think and

wonder, ‘‘Did I do the right thing?’’ And many times they did not.

And that is a terrible lesson to have to learn, and I hate to see anybody do that that way. That is not the way we want to do business

in America, but sometimes that is the way we do it.

So as I look at what has happened and all the situations that we

have reviewed on this Committee, and I have been on this Committee now 21 years, and eventually justice will grind out and

eventually someone will be very, very sorry that they found themselves doing something outside of the bounds of the law.

My comment, Mr. Chairman, to those folks who feel frustrated,

gosh, and that is all of us I guess, is learn to work within the system, and then you can really get something done. Of course, if you

just want to be nasty and paint walls and ruin a person’s livelihood

and all that, that is up to you too, but still on the other hand, you

will feel the wrath of the system eventually come down upon you.

And I would like to submit what I really wanted to say for the

record. Is that all right?

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous

consent that following their testimony, Congressman Nethercutt,

Congressman Hooley and Congressman Walden be allowed to join

the Subcommittee on the dais and to participate in the hearing.

Any objection?

Seeing no objection, so ordered.

10

I would now like to introduce our witnesses on the first panel.

On Panel I we have the Honorable Greg Walden, 2nd District,

State of Oregon; the Honorable Darlene Hooley, 5th District, State

of Oregon; and the Honorable George Nethercutt, 5th District of

the State of Washington.

I remind the witnesses that your testimony is limited to 5 minutes, and, Mr. Walden, I will allow you to proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG WALDEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

OREGON

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your efforts to investigate the issues of eco-terrorism and lawlessness in

our national forests. Let me say at the outset that regardless of

which side of that political spectrum you reside, breaking the law

to further your views is wrong.

I represent the people in a district larger than any state east of

the Mississippi with more than half of those lands controlled by the

Government. Too often the men and women in Federal service have

been the targets of intimidation, ridicule and abuse by those who

blame them for the Federal policies they are paid to implement.

They and their families deserve better than to live in fear that

because of the uniform they wear or the color of the truck they

drive, they somehow are to blame.

We do not tolerate acts of violence against them, just as we must

speak out against acts of intimidation against Native Americans

whose ancestral rights are sometimes in dispute.

But today I focus my attention on the eco-terrorism of two organizations which often jointly claim credit for acts of incredible destruction in my State. Let us call ELF and ALF for what they truly

are: terrorist organizations. Their combatants wear no uniform.

They blend with the civilian population. They destroy private and

government property. They teach others how to conduct dangerous

and illegal acts, and they try to intimidate those who speak against

them.

Both Congresswoman Hooley and I are now featured on an affiliate’s website.

I am sure some may question my inclusion of the Animal Liberation Front in my testimony. However, several terrorist acts nationwide and within my district have been jointly claimed by both

groups’ spokespersons. When Mr. Rosebraugh stepped down as

ELF’s spokesperson, David Barbarash, the spokesperson for ALF,

filled the void from his location in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Two of the three specific acts I will be referring to today were jointly claimed by ELF and ALF.

Mr. Chairman, my district has seen three acts of terrorism committed by ELF or ELF/ALF in recent years. Numerous other acts

of violence and destruction of private property remain unclaimed,

but appear in the recent ALF 2001 Year-End Direct Action Report.

On July 21, 1997 an arson fire at Cavel West meat packing plant

in Redmond, Oregon resulted in $1.4 million in damage, a jointly

claimed act.

According to Captain Wayne Shortreed of the Redmond Police

Department, at one point the blaze was so hot that it threatened

11

a propane storage facility approximately 100 yards away in a

densely populated area.

Four months later this firebombing was followed by a November

29th, 1997 joint-claimed attack on several BLM horse corrals in

Burns, Oregon, also in my district. This direct action resulted in

over $450,000 in damage and the release of 539 horses and burros.

It also resulted in the scuttling of a planned adoption of 100 wild

horses and 40 burros that had been scheduled to take place on December 6th and 7th of that year.

And on December 27th, 1998 ELF firebombed the U.S. Forest Industries headquarters in Medford, Oregon, causing more than

$900,000 in damage. It is this last attack on U.S. Forest Industries,

claimed only by ELF, that I would like to focus on in my testimony

today.

On the morning of December 28th, the employees of U.S. Forest

Industries arrived at work to find their offices smoldering. The

scene is reminiscent of what we saw of the damaged part of the

Pentagon after September 11th, although it didn’t take a jetliner

to destroy this office. An ELF firebomb did the job. And while fortunately there was no loss of life, the destruction was just as severe.

As pictures speak louder than words, I thought it might be helpful to see the damage inflicted on U.S. Forest Industries.

This first picture on my right you will see shows the aftermath

of the firebomb on the exterior of the building with the yellow

crime-scene tape.

In the second picture you see the interior devastation from the

attack, though it is hard to see because the intensity of the fire has

blackened the walls. Company files, office equipment, all destroyed

to further someone’s political agenda.

Amazingly, Mr. Chairman, and by sheer force of will, U.S. Forest

Industries’ operations were shut down for only 4 hours on that

Monday because the company was able to relocate its 15 employees

to its mill operations plant in White City, Oregon. In the words of

U.S. Forest Industries’ President, Jerry Bramwell, quote, ‘‘We

didn’t want to give ELF the satisfaction of putting us out of business.’’ End quote.

It didn’t take long for ELF to claim responsibility for this attack,

as this January 16th, 1999 ELF press release illustrates. We had

to delete the expletives used in the ALF press release, as such language isn’t appropriate for this hearing. I would like to read, however, some excerpts from this release.

In the second paragraph the press release states, and I quote:

‘‘To celebrate the holidays we decided on a bonfire. Unfortunately

for U.S. Forest Industries it was their corporate office headquarters

in Medford, Oregon.’’

The press release then states in the fourth paragraph: ‘‘This was

done in retribution for all the wild forests and animals lost to feed

the wallets of greedy’’—expletive deleted—‘‘like Jerry Bramwell,

U.S.F.I. President.’’

And the attack was not because USFI was harvesting timber

from public lands. No, they were harvesting timber off private

lands in Colorado.

12

The so-called communique ́ continues, and I quote: ‘‘This action is

payback and it is a warning to all other responsible, we do not

sleep and we won’t quit.’’ End quote.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the threat remains.

Mr. Chairman, if there are still some out there who feel that

these acts by ELF and ALF should not be classified as terrorist

acts, perhaps this next poster will sway their opinion.

This is an enlargement of a page taken straight from ELF’s

website. As you can see, the title of the page is ‘‘Setting Fires with

Electrical Timers, an Earth Liberation Front Guide.’’ I think the intent of the guide is dramatically and blatantly clear. They are actively enlisting and training others to carry out additional attacks

in our country.

Now ELF and ALF claim that no human or non-human animal

will be hurt by their attacks. But this assertion is incredulous in

light of the severity and violent nature of many attacks perpetrated

over the last 4 years.

I think an editorial in the January 24th, 1999 edition of the Portland ‘‘Oregonian’’ said it best when it stated, quote: ‘‘ELF’s followers think they have the power to plan their violence so that no

[’’human or non-human animal‘‘] will ever be hurt. What are they

going to say if man, woman or child just happens to be in the

wrong place when ELF makes its next statement by fire. There is

no sense in what ELF offers to the world and no honor.’’ Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t agree more with the words expressed

in this editorial. It is only a matter of time before an innocent life

is lost in a future ELF or ALF attack. That is why it is imperative

to treat all acts of terrorism equally. The terrorists behind the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and December 27th, 1998, both used

terror and destruction to further their cause.

Terrorism is terrorism whether it is international, domestic, economic, religious, social or environmental. So I call on our Justice

Department to redouble its efforts to track down, apprehend and

convict those responsible for these acts. Time to break up this

terrorist network too.

Mr. Chairman, I commend you once again for holding this hearing. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Oregon

Thank you Mr. Chairman for your efforts to investigate the issues of eco-terrorism

and lawlessness on our national forests. Let me say at the outset, that regardless

of which side of the political spectrum you reside, breaking the law to further your

views is wrong.

I represent the people in a district larger than any state east of the Mississippi

with more than half of the lands controlled by the government. Too often the men

and women in the federal service have been the targets of intimidation, ridicule and

abuse by those who blame them for the federal policies they are paid to implement.

They and their families deserve better than to live in fear that because of the uniform they wear or the color of the truck they drive that somehow they are to blame.

We do not tolerate acts of violence against them. Just as we must speak out

against acts of intimidation against Native Americans whose ancestral rights are in

dispute.

But today I focus my attention on the eco-terrorism of two organizations, which

often jointly claim ‘‘credit’’ for acts of incredible destruction in my state.

Let’s call ELF and ALF for what they truly are—TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Their combatants wear no uniform. They blend with the civilian population. They

13

destroy private and government property. They teach others how to conduct dangerous and illegal acts. And they try to intimidate those who speak against them.

Both Congresswoman Hooley and I are now featured on their affiliate’s website.

I am sure some may question my inclusion of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF),

in my testimony. However, several terrorist acts nationwide and within my district

have been jointly claimed by both group’s spokespersons. When Mr. Rosebraugh

stepped down as the ELF spokesperson, David Barbarsh, the spokesperson for ALF,

filled the void from his location in Vancouver, British Columbia. Two of the three

specific acts I will be referring to today, were jointly claimed by ELF/ALF.

Mr. Chairman, my district has seen three acts of terrorism committed by ELF or

ELF/ALF in recent years. Numerous other acts of violence and destruction of private

property remain un-claimed, but appear in the recent ALF 2001 Year–End Direct

Action Report. On July 21, 1997 an arson fire at Cavel West meatpacking plant in

Redmond, Oregon resulted in $1.4-million in damage, a jointly claimed act.

According to Captain Wayne Shortreed of the Redmond Police Department, at one

point the blaze was so hot that it threatened a propane storage facility approximately 100 yards away in a densely populated area.

Four months later, this firebombing was followed by a November 29, 1997 jointly

claimed attack on several BLM horse corrals in Burns, Oregon, also in my district.

This direct action resulted in over $450,000 in damage and the release of 539 horses

and burros. It also resulted in the scuttling of a planned adoption of 100 wild horses

and 40 burros that had been scheduled to take place on December 6–7, 1997.

And, on December 27, 1998 ELF firebombed the U.S. Forest Industries headquarters in Medford, Oregon causing more than $900-thousand in damage. It is this

last attack on U.S. Forest Industries, claimed only by ELF, that I’d like to focus

on in my testimony.

On the morning of December 28, 1998, the employees of U.S. Forest Industries

arrived at work to find their offices smoldering. The scene is reminiscent of what

we saw of the damaged part of the Pentagon after September 11th. It didn’t take

a jetliner to destroy this office, an ELF firebomb did the job. And while fortunately

there was no loss of life, the destruction was just as severe.

As pictures speak louder than words, I thought it might be helpful to see the damage inflicted on U.S. Forest Industries.

This first picture you see shows the aftermath of the firebomb on the exterior of

the building with the yellow, crime-scene tape.

In this second picture you see the interior devastation from the attack, though it’s hard to see because the intensity of the fire has blackened the walls. Company files,

office equipment, all destroyed to further someone’s political agenda.

Amazingly, Mr. Chairman, and by sheer force of will, US Forest Industries operations were shutdown for only four hours on Monday, December 28 because the

company was able to relocate its 15 employees to its mill operations plant in White

City, Oregon. In the words of U.S. Forest Industries President, Jerry Bramwell, ‘‘We

didn’t want to give ELF the satisfaction of putting us out of business. ‘‘

It didn’t take long for ELF to claim responsibility for this attack as this January

16, 1999 ALF press release illustrates. We had to delete the expletives used in the

ALF press release; as such language is not appropriate for this hearing. I would like

to read some excerpts from this release. In the second paragraph the press release

states:

‘‘To celebrate the holidays we decided on a bonfire. Unfortunately for US

Forest Industries it was at their corporate office headquarters in Medford,

Oregon.’’

The press release then states in the fourth paragraph: ‘‘This was done in retribution for all the wild forests and animals lost to feed the wallets of greedy (expletive

deleted) f—ks, like Jerry Bramwell, U.S.F.I. President.’’

The attack was not because USFI was harvesting timber from public lands—no,

they were harvesting timber off of private lands in Colorado.

The so-called ‘‘communique ́’’ continued—and I quote: ‘‘This action is payback and

it is a warning to all others responsible, we do not sleep and we won’t quit.’’ End

quote.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the threat remains.

Mr. Chairman, if there are still some out there who feel that these acts by ELF/

ALF should not be classified as terrorist acts, perhaps this next poster will sway

their opinion.

This is an enlargement of a page taken straight from ELF’s website

(www.earthliberationfront.com). As you can see, the title of the page is ‘‘Setting

Fires with Electrical Timers: An Earth Liberation Front Guide.’’ I think the intent

of the guide is dramatically and blatantly clear. They’re actively enlisting and training others to carry out additional attacks in our country.

14

Now, ELF and ALF’s claim that no ‘‘human or non-human animal’’ will be hurt

by their attacks. But this assertion is incredulous in light of the severity and violent

nature of many attacks perpetrated over the last four years.

I think an editorial in the January 24, 1999 edition of the Oregonian said it best

when it stated ‘‘...ELF’s followers think they have the power to plan their violence

so that no [‘‘human or non-human animal‘‘] will ever be hurt. What are they going

to say if man, woman or child just happens to be in the wrong place when ELF

makes its next statement by fire. There is no sense in what ELF offers to the world

and no honor.’’ Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t agree more with the words expressed in this editorial.

It is only a matter of time before an innocent life is lost in a future ELF/ALF attack.

That is why it is imperative to treat all acts of terrorism equally. The terrorists behind the attacks of September 11, 2001 and December 27, 1998 both used terror and

destruction to further their cause.

Terrorism is terrorism whether it is international domestic, economic, religious,

social or environmental. I call on our Justice Department to redouble its efforts to

track down, apprehend and convict those responsible for these acts. It’s time to

break up this terrorist network, too.

Mr. Chairman, I commend you once again for holding this hearing and I yield

back the balance of my time.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Walden.

Ms. Hooley

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

OREGON

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is very appropriate that we are gathered here today on the

birthday of Abraham Lincoln, one of our country’s greatest leaders.

His career and the turbulent times he brought the Nation through

exemplifies a need to foreswear violence in the name of political

causes and abide by the rule of law.

In the wake of an 1837 mob lynching of an abolitionist newspaper editor, Lincoln urged his fellow Americans to let reverence

for the law become the political religion of the Nation, to let legislators and judges chosen by the people, rather than lynch mobs motivated by passion and hatred, decide important issues.

In the end Lincoln’s philosophy was vindicated. Our Nation remains united and we are committed by the rule of law.

But there is a minority of Americans who refuse to abide by this

covenant. They believe the rule of law does not apply to them, and

in the forests and communities of Oregon and the western United

States, their actions are a rapidly growing problem.

Oregon has seen a growing number of incidents of eco-terrorism.

Last year a Boise Cascade building in my district was burned down

by ELF on Christmas Day. While eco-terrorists claim that they

don’t want to harm people, they need to sit down with the volunteer firefighters who were roused from their bed on Christmas

morning to fight the blaze they started. One of those firefighters,

Paul Evans, who is also mayor of the city, told me he barely escaped from the inferno before the roof of the building collapsed.

Last year poplar trees involved in a research project at Oregon

State University were destroyed. And there are more stories.

Unfortunately, neither side of the battle over the environment

has a monopoly on the use of violence. Both environmentalists and

those who oppose increased protections of our natural resources

have resorted to illegal tactics to advance their causes. Federal

15

land managers have been harassed, intimidated and threatened by

those who are opposed to environmental protections.

Let me be clear. Using violence or intimidation in the name of

a political cause is wrong. In a democracy we fight for change at

the ballot box and in the halls of our legislature.

Eco-terrorism poses additional challenges to the law enforcement

community. It is a well-known fact that very few eco-terrorists

have been caught. These groups have no formal organization. They

act in small terror cells which are autonomous from one another.

Because these crimes are investigated with limited resources and

manpower, local law enforcement officials have little success in successfully closing these cases.

Along with my colleague from Oregon, Congressman Walden, I

have sought to reverse the current situation by sponsoring

H.R. 2583, the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Act. This bill

would provide Federal assistance where it is needed most, at the

local level. It would establish the Attorney General to establish a

national clearinghouse for information of incidences of ecoterrorism, with the hope that the investigators stay ahead of the

curve in preventing additional acts of terror.

In addition, H.R. 2583 would establish the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Program in the Department of Justice. This program would authorize the Attorney General to designate any area

as a High-Intensity Environmental Terrorism Area, and we know

these happen in groups. After making such a designation, local law

enforcement agencies would access Federal funding to assist them

in solving and preventing these types of crimes in the future. This

program is similar to the Department of Justice’s high-Intensity

Drug-Trafficking Area, better known as HIDTA, which has been

extraordinarily useful in Oregon and other states in helping to

make our communities better places to live.

Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, again thank you for

the opportunity to appear before the Committee. I urge you and the

rest of the Committee to co-sponsor H.R. 2583 and assist Congressman Walden and I in getting this legislation approved.

Thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Darlene Hooley, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Oregon

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

It is very appropriate that we are gathered here today on the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, one of our country’s greatest leaders. His career—and the turbulent

times he brought the nation through—exemplify the need to foreswear violence in

the name of political causes and abide by the rule of law.

In the wake of an 1837 mob lynching of an anti-slavery newspaper editor, Lincoln

urged his fellow Americans to ‘‘let reverence for the laws . . . become the political

religion of the nation,’’ to let legislatures and judges chosen by the people, rather

than lynch-mobs motivated by passion and hatred, decide matters.

In the end, Lincoln’s philosophy was vindicated. Our nation remains united, and

we are committed to the rule of law.

But as is always the case, there is a minority of Americans who refuse to abide

by this covenant. They believe the rule of law does not apply to them, and in the

forests and communities of Oregon and the Western United States, their actions are

a rapidly growing problem.

Violence or intimidation directed against a Forest Service employee—or arson in

the name of protecting the environment—are not lawful acts. They are crimes—and

16

their perpetrators should be apprehended and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the

law.

Obviously, there are laws in place prohibiting assault or threatening harm against

any individual, whether he or she is an environmental activist or a Forest Service

employee. It is inexcusable that a Park Service ranger would have to live in fear

of having their home or office bombed, or that someone monitoring water quality

on public land could be beaten and left for dead.

These are just some of the crimes on federal land which have occurred in the past

few years. As such, I strongly urge the members of the Committee to ensure that

our local, state, and federal law enforcement officials are effectively upholding the

law in this regard.

That said, eco-terrorism poses additional challenges for the law enforcement community.

It is a well-known fact that very few eco-terrorists, especially E–L–F representatives, have been caught. These groups have no formal organization, and act in small

terrorist cells which are autonomous from one another. Because these crimes are investigated with limited resources and manpower, local law enforcement officials

have little success in successfully closing these cases.

Along with my colleague from Oregon, Congressman Greg Walden, I have sought

to reverse the current situation by sponsoring H.R. 2583, the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Act. This bill would provide federal assistance where it is needed

most, at the local level.

H.R. 2583 would first require the Attorney General to establish a national clearinghouse for information on incidents of eco-terrorism, with the hope that investigators stay ahead of the curve in preventing additional acts of terror.

It should be noted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) already

maintains a data-base of information on every explosive device found or triggered

in the United States. As we consider moving this bill forward, it should be perfected

to ensure the clearing house contain input from ATF so as not to reinvent the

wheel.

In addition, H.R. 2583 would establish the Environmental Terrorism Reduction

Program in the Department of Justice.

This program would authorize the Attorney General, upon consultation with the

heads of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the Governor of

each applicable State, to designate any area as a high intensity environmental

terrorism area. After making such a designation local law enforcement agencies

could access federal funding to assist them in solving and preventing these types

of crimes in the future.

This program is similar to the Department of Justice’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program (HIDTA), which has been extraordinarily useful in Oregon and

other states in helping make our communities better places to live.

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you again for the opportunity to

appear before the Committee. I would urge you and entire panel to co-sponsor

H.R. 2583, and assist Congressman Walden and I in getting this legislation approved by the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Congresswoman.

Mr. Nethercutt, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

WASHINGTON

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to

thank you and the ranking member, Mr. Inslee, for taking the initiative to conduct this hearing today, and I thank the members of

the Subcommittee for your attention to this panel of witnesses.

If I may, I would like to have my prepared statement made part

of the record, and I will do my best to summarize it here in the

5 minutes that you have allotted to us.

Mr. Chairman, Agroterrorism and the reprehensible actions of

radical environmentalists have for too long been perceived as local

concerns concentrated in particular geographic areas. The sheer

scope of this criminal activity escapes the focus it deserves, with

17

arson, vandalism and intimidation often occurring in rural areas

with limited press coverage. So we are left with anecdotal evidence

and a little sense of the vast criminal conspiracy that connects the

members of organizations such as ALF and ELF.

I would ask that some documents be included in the record, if I

may, which I hope would help the Subcommittee in considering

this issue.

The first item is a letter to me from the National Center for Public Policy Research, along with copies of correspondence exchanged

with national environmental groups about their positions on violent

activism.

Second I am providing a Department of Agriculture report on the

extent of animal and plant terrorism incidents at USDA funded facilities, with recommendations for improving security. And this report especially responds to a requirement I sponsored in fiscal year

2001, and represents only the very first tentative efforts by Federal

agencies to grapple with this problem.

And third I am providing the 2001 Year-End Direct Action Report from the Animal Liberation Front.

As members of the Subcommittee may know, I represent the

State of Washington, a State that is blessed with vast and beautiful natural resources and a vibrant biotechnology industry. We

have agriculture, and science, and forestry, that has been under assault by radical environmental groups for years in our State, and

constituents of mine have been very concerned with actions that

threaten their lives and their livelihood.

I have had a chance to talk with a number of scientists, research

scientists who have been in the business for many years, and one

in particular struck a chord with me. She was a middle-aged

woman who had been working in medical research for years and

had been physically threatened by radicals and was fearful of her

safety. And she said to me, ‘‘Congressman, I’m just trying to cure

breast cancer, and these people in these groups are trying to intimidate me from doing the work that I think will help humanity.’’

Another scientist from my district, an agricultural research scientist, literally fled from this country, went to Australia for a year,

after receiving death threats to his family.

So these are people who want to make our lives better, who want

to improve society, who want to help other people, and they are

being intimidated in the research industry by people who have little care for humanity.

In May of 2001 it sort of came to a boiling point for me. The Horticultural Center at the University of Washington, not in my district but in my beautiful State, was burned to the ground. The University Center for Urban Horticulture was burned down. The direct

cost of that crime was $5.3 million. I met today with a scientist

from that facility, who is heartbroken and said his colleagues are

heartbroken, by not only the violent act that burned down this

building, but from the standpoint that the research that they had

conducted over the years was destroyed. It has an impact in the

real world, in the real scientific world.

So what I have done is introduced legislation. It is H.R. 2795,

the Agroterrorism Prevention Act. And I want to commend ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
18

gressman Cunningham and Congressman Chambliss for their work

in crafting this bill.

What it does, in summary, is it enhances the penalties for this

kind of destructive act by organizations like ELF and ALF. It provides an increase in penalty for violation from 1 year to 5 years in

prison. And a new penalty is added for the use of explosives or

arson, recognizing that firebombing, as Congressman Walden said,

is the preferred act in this kind of activity. We expand the restitution requirements and allow a possible death penalty, a sentence

for violations that causes somebody to die. And it is only a matter

of time, Mr. Chairman, until somebody is going to die. And the law

ought to be strong enough to deal with that kind of destructive behavior that is likely to cause death in the days ahead.

I know my time is up, but I just want to say this. We provide

assistance in this bill, not only for enhanced penalties but we are

going to help the research facilities in this country protect themselves from this kind of activity where people come in and they tip

over trays of scientific research and destroy years of work and experiments that are paid for by the taxpayer. Federal research is

provided all across this country in universities and other institutions with taxpayer dollars. When those are destroyed, that destroys and wastes taxpayer dollars.

I have two charts to show to the Subcommittee. The first one,

Mr. Chairman, shows that University of Washington facility and

the fire, before and the after. This is a horticultural center, and it

was destroyed to the tune of $5.3 million in damages. The chart

shows the self-reported terrorism from ALF and ELF in 2001. The

red states are the ones that have been targeted by these two organizations in the last year.

Let me close with this quote. These are words attributed to ALF

following an attack on the property of a Michigan veterinarian

working with fur farmers. Quote: ‘‘We must all act our consciousness and inflict economic harm upon all of those who are responsible for the destruction of the earth and its inhabitants. We encourage others to find a local Earth raper and make them pay...The

only language these people understand is money. We must inflict

economic sabotage on all Earth rapers if we are ever to stop the

madness we live in. To do so is not a crime, it is a necessity.’’

One other quote that this Committee ought to understand and

appreciate. In a recent magazine interview, Mr. Rosebraugh

showed his sympathy with the victims of September 11, noting:

‘‘Anyone in their right mind would realize the United States had

it coming.’’

One of his ELF associates was more direct. Quote: ‘‘I cheered

when the plane hit the Pentagon. Those people are in the business

of killing people. It was like, sorry [expletive] happen.’’

I urge this Committee to favorably report out legislation like the

Agroterrorism Prevention Act, and bills like Ms. Hooley and Mr.

Walden have sponsored and proposed.

And I am grateful that this Committee has taken the time to address this issue. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nethercutt follows:]

19

Statement of The Honorable George R. Nethercutt, Jr., a Representative in

Congress from the State of Washington

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the ranking member for taking the

initiative to conduct this hearing today. Agroterrorism and the reprehensible actions

of radical environmentalists have for too long been perceived as local concerns, concentrated in particular geographic regions. The sheer scope of this criminal activity

escapes the focus it deserves, with arson, vandalism and intimidation often occurring in rural areas, with limited press coverage. We are left with anecdotal evidence

and little sense of the vast criminal conspiracy that connects the members of organizations such as the Animal and Earth Liberation Fronts.

I would ask to include in the record three items which I believe may be helpful

to the Subcommittee in considering this issue. The first item is a letter to me from

the National Center for Public Policy Research, along with copies of correspondence

exchanged with national environmental groups about their positions on violent activism. Second, I am providing a Department of Agriculture report on the extent of

animal and plant terrorism incidents at USDA funded facilities, with recommendations for improving security. This report responds to a requirement I sponsored in

fiscal year 01, and represents only the very first tentative efforts by Federal

agencies to grapple with this problem. Third, I am providing the 2001 Year–End Direct Action Report from the Animal Liberation Front.

I represent Washington state, which is blessed with rich natural resources and

a vibrant biotechnology industry. Agriculture, forestry and science have been under

assault by radicals for years in our state, and constituents have long expressed their

concerns with criminal activity that threatens both their lives and their livelihood.

I met with one scientist who told me that she has been physically threatened by

radicals and fears for her safety. ‘‘Yet, all I want to do is cure breast cancer,’’ she

says. Another scientist, from my district, fled with his family to Australia for a year

after receiving death threats. These are people who want to make our lives better,

cure diseases, make agriculture more sustainable and less ecologically damaging.

But organizations like the Earth Liberation Front have put a bulls-eye on them.

In May of 2001, I finally had enough. At 3am on May 21, 2001, the University

of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture was burned to the ground. In the

twisted logic of the eco-terrorists, the Horticulture Center had done wrong by seeking to advance the protection and hardiness of urban forests and wetlands. The results of that crime are evident in this display. This facility suffered $5.3 million in

physical damage—some faculty members lost a lifetime of work that day, and that

cost is inestimable. That same day, a poplar tree farm in Oregon was firebombed

with almost identical incendiary devices. The interstate connections were made perfectly clear by that simultaneous action, and persuaded me that a strong federal response was required to contain this terrorism.

I will be eager to hear from Mr. Rosebraugh later this afternoon. Too many members of his organization lurk in the shadows, unwilling to engage in honest debate,

but all to willing to resort to arson. I suspect that the purported intellectual

underpinnings of this radicalism are insufficiently developed to weather the public

condemnation that must accompany the associated violence. But before we go further, it may be helpful to have at least some sense of the ALF/ELF mind set.

In recent and telling magazine interview, Mr. Rosebraugh showed his sympathy

with the victims of September 11, noting: ‘‘Anyone in their right mind would realize

the United States had it coming.’’ One of his ELF associates was more direct: ‘‘I

cheered when the plan hit the Pentagon. Those people are in the business of killing

people. It was like, Sorry, [expletive] happens.’’ The connection with September 11

is not unwarranted, for like the murders in New York and Pennsylvania, members

of these shadowy organizations have no respect for human life and will stop at nothing in pursuit of their dark vision of the future.

How best to deal with this home-grown brand of Al Qaeda? I propose that we use

the model that has worked so well in Afghanistan. Improve our intelligence. Free

the hands of law enforcement authorities. Isolate terrorists from allies and assistance. Cut off their funding. Give them no rest and no quarter.

National environmental groups need to know, you are either with us or against

us. You need to choose which side you are on, and know we will be watching. Financing and harboring terrorists is no different from directly committing the acts.

These dangerous and misguided zealots must be left without aid or comfort. This

is the moral framework.

I have introduced legislation, H.R. 2795, the Agroterrorism Prevention Act, which

would provide the necessary legal framework. I must here acknowledge the unflinching support of the lead cosponsors on this bill, Duke Cunningham and Saxby

Chambliss. Our bill would broaden current definitions to protect all plant and

20

animal research, enhance penalties for animal or plant enterprise terrorism, allow

the FBI to investigate crimes under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations

Act, and establish an incident clearinghouse to strengthen local law enforcement efforts. The bill would also establish a research security program to extend technical

assistance, threat and risk assessments to research universities.

Current law provides federal protection for some animal research, but H.R. 2795

would also include all plant research, including advanced genetic techniques, increasingly the targets of terror. We seek to broaden protection for facilities presently

covered by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, to include any commercial or academic enterprise that uses plants or animals. The ALF would now violate this section of federal law by bombing a livestock research lab, but not the Cattlemen’s Association office down the street. We seek to end that inconsistency and would also

expand the threshold for triggering violation of the act by recognizing ancillary economic damages.

Penalties for violations would be increased from one year to five years, and a new

penalty is added for the use of explosives or arson, recognizing that firebombing is

the preferred tactic of these groups. We expand restitution requirements and allow

a possible death penalty sentence for violations resulting in a death. Firebombing

is not a precise science, and I fear it is only a matter of time before a botanist is

in the wrong place at the wrong time. This activity should be made a RICO predicate to give the FBI the tools it needs to unravel the web of criminal conspiracy.

A information clearinghouse, administered by the FBI, would enhance Federal, state

and local law enforcement efforts to draw connections from fragmentary evidence.

For too long, agroterrorism has been the stuff of anecdotes—short stories in the

local paper, with no clear pattern or sense of the true scope of the activity. Yet, as

this next chart makes clear, agroterrorism is a vast national problem. Each dot on

this map represents one self-reported incident by the ALF/ELF during 2001.

Finally, H.R. 2795 would provide authorization for the National Science Foundation to provide competitively awarded grants to colleges and universities. We have

a responsibility to protect our public investment in research, and this authorization

would provide some initial ‘‘lessons learned’’ to educate the hardening of public research facilities.

Ultimately, the physical damage is secondary to the threat to innovation and scientific discovery. The academic disciplines that seek to improve human health, our

food supply, and the environment are at greatest risk. Intimidation and violence

have a predictable and unwelcome result, a chilling effect on scientific investigation

and an impediment to discoveries that will improve our lives.

I would like to close with a few select words attributed to the ALF, following an

attack on the property of a Michigan veterinarian working with fur farmers:

‘‘We must all act our consciousness and inflict economic harm upon all of those

who are responsible for the destruction of the earth and its inhabitants. We encourage others to find a local Earth raper and make them pay . . . The only language

these people understand is money. We must inflict economic sabotage on all Earth

rapers if we are ever to stop the madness we live in. To do so is not a crime, it

is a necessity.’’

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and for supporting efforts

to drain this fetid swamp of extremism.

Mr. MCINNIS. I thank the members, and as the members know,

you’re welcome to join us at the dais if you would like. Also from

the Committee, we have had other members that have come in and

sat at the dais. Is there any objection to any other member sitting

at the dais?

I see no objection, so ordered.

Our next witness has been subpoenaed to the Committee. It was

with reluctance that we issued the subpoena, but the witness refused to appear in front of the Committee voluntarily. His response

was that he had no desire to cooperate with the same state that

is directly responsible for ongoing murder and exploitation of life

both within this country and internationally.

He has responded to the subpoena, and I would now call him to

the stand. Mr. Rosebraugh.

21

Mr. SUGARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask your permission for

me to sit next to my client, since he is the only person. I would appreciate it.

Mr. MCINNIS. Counsel, it is my practice to have you—you may

sit behind your client, but I don’t allow counsel to sit at the table

with your client.

Mr. SUGARMAN. Very well. Thank you for considering my request.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, if you would please stand and

raise your right hand, I would like to administer the oath.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are

about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

truth, so help you God?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I do.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Rosebraugh. You may be seated.

Mr. Rosebraugh, we allow you a period of 5 minutes for an opening statement or oral statement, and in addition to that, you will

also be allowed to submit for the written record additional comments if you wish. You may proceed, Mr. Rosebraugh.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG ROSEBRAUGH, FORMER PRESS

OFFICER, EARTH LIBERATION FRONT, ACCOMPANIED BY

STUART A. SUGARMAN, ESQ., L.L.C.

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I don’t have any opening statement. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosebraugh follows:]

Statement of Craig Rosebraugh, Former Press Officer,

Earth Liberation Front

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same

object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it

is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide

new guards for their future security.

The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial

distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1776

On April 15, 1972, I came into this world as a child of two wonderful parents living in Portland, Oregon. Growing up in the Pacific Northwestern region of the

United States, I had the privilege of easy access to the natural world. Much of my

childhood was spent in the fields and forested areas behind our home, playing and

experiencing life in my time of innocence. I had no knowledge of societal problems,

especially those pertaining to the natural environment.

Throughout my childhood and adolescent years, the education I received from my

parents, schools, popular media and culture instilled in me a pride for my country,

for my government, and everything the United States represented. I was taught

about the great American history, our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our legacy

of being at the forefront of democracy and freedom. I considered myself to be just

an average boy taking an active part in the popular American pastimes of competitive sports, consumer culture, and existing within a classic representation of the

standard, middle-class suburban lifestyle.

Upon graduating from high school, I became exposed to new forms of education

and ideas. Resulting from my exposure to people from differing socio-economic backgrounds and beginning college, I found my horizons beginning to widen. For the first

time in my life, I was presented with the notion of political and social conflict coupled with the various issues contained within both categories. It was alarming yet,

at the same time, invigorating as I began to feel passion burn within me.

22

George Bush, Sr. had just thrust the United States into what became known as

the Gulf War. Now, as I was raised with a certain absolutist support of my country

and government, my first inclination was to wave the stars and stripes and support

unconditionally this noble pursuit of ‘‘promoting democracy and freedom’’ in the ‘‘less fortunate’’ and ‘‘uncivilized’’ lands. Yet, as I began to look further into the matter, I found myself asking questions such as why are we there? Why are we killing

civilians? What is the true motive behind the conflict? After extensive research, I

came to the logical and truthful conclusion that natural resources and regional

power were the primary motives.

As news from independent sources slowly filtered out, I became increasingly horrified at the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military. With NO WAR FOR OIL

as my personal guiding statement, I joined the local anti-war protests and movement existing in Portland, Oregon. Little did I realize that this first political activity

would lead me to a life of devotion to true justice and real freedom.

While my anti-war involvement progressed, I also began to understand the disastrous relationship our modern society has with the many animal nations. Out of an

interest inspired both by independent reading and through early college courses, I

became involved with a local animal advocacy organization. At first, I attended

meetings to hear the numerous arguments for the rights of animals and further my

own education. The more I learned, the more compelled I felt to involve myself fully

in working for animal protection. My activities went from merely attending meetings, rallies, and protests to organizing them. Of all the issues I had learned about

during the six years I spent with that organization, I focused the majority of my

time, research, and interest on fighting against the use of animals in biomedical and

scientific experimentation.

While a great percentage of the public in the United States had been convinced

that animal research progressed and continues to improve human health, I soon realized that this myth was not only untruthful and single sided, but the work of a

slick public relations campaign by the pharmaceutical industry in coordination with

federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. I also learned that just

like the factory farm industry, the use of animals for human entertainment and for

the fashion industry, animal experimentation was motivated first and foremost by

profits. Furthermore, I learned how the government of the United States not only

economically supports these various institutions of exploitation and slaughter, but

how it continues to perpetuate and politically support the dangerous lie that animal

research saves human lives. My support for various governmental policies was slowly fading.

And then memories of innocence were torn away. In the early 1990s, I learned

that the lush natural acreage I used to play in as a child had been sold to a development firm. It intended to bulldoze the entire area and create a virtual community

of homes for the upper middle class to wealthy. Within two years, the land as I

knew it was no more. The visual reminder I used to appreciate, the one that would

take me back to the years when the fields and trees were my playground, was stolen

by a development corporation who saw more value in the land as luxurious houses

than for its natural beauty and life.

I remember asking myself, what would happen to the various wildlife who made

the area their home for so many years? Where would the deer, coyotes, skunks, wild

cats, mice, raccoons, opossums, and others go? It was obvious that the developers

had not even considered these questions. Rather, it appeared, the main pursuit of

the corporation was working towards building incredibly large homes as close as

possible to one another for maximum financial gain.

As the 1990s progressed, I became increasingly aware of the relationship between

social and political problems in the United States. No single issue was truly independent but rather was affected by many others. In my work with the local animal

advocacy organization, I realized that exploitation and destruction at the hands of

human domination over animals also involved much more. Economics, politics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, science, religion, and other disciplines all played a

significant role in understanding this unhealthy and unbalanced relationship between humans and other animals. But, by far the most important realization I made

was that the problems facing animals, the problems facing the natural environment,

and those affecting humans all came from a primary source. Understanding this

crucial connection, I co-founded a non-profit organization in 1996 dedicated to educating the public on this fundamental realization.

During the mid–1990s, through continued formal and informal education, I also

began to understand that the history I had learned growing up was only one story

of many. I gained insight into the fact that everything I had learned about the

origins of the United States of America had been purely from the viewpoint of the

colonists and European settlers. Thus, the history I was taught was from the

23

perspective of the privileged white man, which not only told a mere fraction of the

story, but also provided an extreme amount of misinformation as well.

I was never taught that the origins of this country were based upon murder, exploitation, and ultimate genocide. My teachers neglected to mention the fact that

the white European settlers nearly annihilated the various indigenous peoples who

had existed on this land for ages. Instead, I was taught about Thanksgiving and

Columbus Day. I bought into this version of American history so much that I vividly

recall my excitement over creating a paper model of one of Columbus’ ships years

ago.

No one ever seemed to provide the insight to me that the settlers, immediately

upon their arrival, immediately enslaved the natives, and forced them to work and

assist the European powers in their quest for gold and spices. Likewise, I failed to

ever have access to a true African–American history that began when blacks were

captured and shipped as property to this land to work as slaves for white men.

While I was taught about the so-called ‘‘Great American Revolution,’’ it was never

mentioned that this war for independence against the European powers only served

and benefited the privileged white male. Of course, all white men were privileged

to some degree; however, many were enslaved initially just like the natives and

blacks. Women, natives, blacks, and, to a limited degree, poor whites were considered property, bought, sold, and owned by the affluent white hierarchy.

In school, my teachers did explain to me the importance of the U.S. Constitution

and the Bill of Rights and how our forefathers drew up these documents to serve

the people. This, I learned, was the foundation of our supposed great democracy.

Yet, in reality, these items were created by the white power structure and only

served to benefit the privileged members of white society. Women, blacks, natives,

and poor white men still were not enfranchised nor had any accessibility to self-determination and freedom. Land ownership—a notion completely foreign and absurd

to most of the indigenous—became a deciding factor of power and privilege for white

men. Those without land lacked the opportunity for the vote, for ultimate power and

respect.

As more and more settlers pushed westward through the country, the government

committed endless treaty breaches and violations, stealing land that whites had allotted to the indigenous. Perhaps one of the most disturbing facts was that these

original agreements made between various indigenous nations and the United

States government were supposed to have international standing. Each of the indigenous populations was recognized at the time each document was signed as being

a sovereign nation and, yet, the U.S. government still exerted its power and domination to steal land for eventual development and drainage of resources. This genocide

against the varied Native American nations by the United States continues today

with innocent people such as Leonard Peltier being imprisoned for years simply due

to the government’s perception of him as a political threat. Free Leonard Peltier!

On July 4 annually, U.S. citizens celebrate the founding of our country, most either blatantly forgetting or ignorant of the true issues surrounding that date. The

fact that the United States as a nation systematically committed mass genocide

against the indigenous of these lands, to catastrophic extremities, is certainly no

cause for celebration. Rather, it should be a time for mourning, for remembrance,

and, most of all for education of our children so we are not doomed to repeat the

mistakes of the past.

The plight of blacks and women throughout U.S. history, although perhaps not

as overtly catastrophic, still constituted outright mass murder, enslavement, exploitation, and objectification. Early on, white European settlers found that natives

were much more difficult to enslave and manage due to their ability to maintain

at least partial elements of their cultures. When blacks began to first arrive on slave

ships, chained in the darkness below the decks, white settlers theorized they would

make better slaves because they would be further removed from their cultures.

Thus, the enslavement of blacks began in this land and would, in its overt form,

last for a couple hundred years. During this time and well beyond, blacks were considered property to be bought, sold, traded, used, and disposed of at will.

Even after the abolitionist movement, which began in the 1820s, blacks continued

to be considered second-rate citizens, restricted from voting and experiencing the

free life which whites were accustomed. When the modern U.S. civil rights movement began in the 1940s, it took some twenty years of constant hardship and struggle to achieve some reform in the fascist policies of the United States. Even though

blacks ‘‘won’’ the right to vote and exist in desegregated zones, there still was an

absence of overall freedom, never any actual resemblance of equality. Today, the

saga continues. While African Americans have made incredible progress in obtaining

certain rights and privileges, there continues to be a more hidden, underlying discrimination that is every bit as potent. We can see a clear example by taking an

24

honest look at the prison industrial complex and understanding who continues to

be enslaved in mass to make that industry financially viable. Free Mumia Abu

Jamal! Free the Move 9! Free all the political prisoners in the United States!

A similar and equally unfortunate history has and continues to haunt women in

U.S. society. Also once considered property, women were not even able to vote in

this country until the 1920s. Even after, they continued to be faced with a patriarchal society consisting of white men in power. While women have made many wonderful advances for themselves, they still exist today in the United States under

that same sexist and patriarchal society. A quick glance at the profiles of the federal

government as well as top CEOs from U.S. corporations fully illustrates this reality.

When I co-founded the non-profit organization in Portland, Oregon, in 1996, I was

becoming more aware that the similarities in the human, environmental, and animal advocacy movements stemmed from this rich U.S. history, not of glory, freedom

and democracy, but of oppression in its sickest forms. I began to also realize that

just as the U.S. white male power structure put itself on a pedestal above everyone

else, it also maintained that attitude toward the natural environment and the various animal nations existing within it. As a society, we have continuously acted towards these natural life forms as though we owned them, therefore giving us the

right to do whatever we wanted and could do to them.

Particularly, with the advent of the industrial revolution in the United States, the

destruction of the natural world took a sharp turn for the worse. The attitude, more

so than ever, turned to one of profits at any cost and a major shift from sustainable

living to stockpiling for economic benefit. This focus on stockpiling and industrial

productivity caused hardship on communities, forcing local crafters and laborers to

be driven out of business by overly competitive industries. Additionally, with this

new focus on sacrificing sustainable living for financial gain, natural resources were

in greater demand than ever. Semi-automatic to automatic machinery, production

lines, the automobile, the roadway system, suburbs, and the breakup of small, fairly

self-sufficient communities all came about, at least in part, due to the industrial revolution. This unhealthy and deadly transgression of course was supported and promoted by the U.S. government, always eager to see growth in the domestic economy.

All of this set the stage for the threatening shortage of natural resources and the

massive environmental pollution and destruction present today in the United

States. In cities such as Los Angeles, Detroit, and Houston, the air and soil pollution levels are so extreme people have suffered and continue to face deadly health

problems. Waterways throughout the country, including the Columbia Slough in my

backyard, are so polluted from industries it is recommended that humans don’t even

expose themselves to the moisture let alone drink unfiltered, unbottled water. The

necessary and crucial forests of the Pacific Northwestern region of the country have

been systematically destroyed by corporations such as Boise Cascade, Willamette Industries, and others within the timber industry whose sole motive is profits regardless of the expense to the health of an ecosystem. In Northern California, the sacred

old growths, dreamlike in appearance, taking your breath away at first glance, have

been continuously threatened and cut by greedy corporations such as Pacific Lumber/Maxxam. The same has occurred and still is a reality in states including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Colorado.

The first National Forests were established in the United States more than a century ago. One hundred fifty-five of them exist today spread across 191 million acres.

Over the years, the forest products industry has decimated publicly owned National

Forests in this country, leaving a horrendous trail of clearcuts and logging roads.

Commercial logging has been responsible for annihilating nearly all of the nation’s

old growth forests, draining nutrients from the soil, washing topsoil into streams,

destroying wildlife habitat, and creating an increase in the incidence and severity

of forest fires. Only an estimated 4percent of old growth forests in the United States

are remaining.

The National Forests in the United States contain far more than just trees. In

fact, more than 3,000 species of fish and wildlife, in addition to 10,000 plant species,

have their habitat within the National Forests. This includes at least 230 endangered plant and animal species. All of these life forms co-exist symbiotically to naturally create the rich and healthy ecosystems needed for life to exist on this planet.

The benefits of a healthy forest cannot be overrated. Healthy forests purify drinking water, provide fresh clean air to breathe, stabilize hillsides, and prevent floods.

Hillsides clearcut or destroyed by logging roads lose their ability to absorb heavy

rainfall. If no trees exist to soak up moisture with roots to hold the soil, water flows

freely down slopes, creating muddy streams, polluting drinking water, strengthening

floods, and causing dangerous mudslides. Instead of valuing trees and forests for

being necessary providers of life, the U.S. Forest Service and commercial logging interests have decimated these precious ecosystems.

25

The timber corporations argue that today in the United States more forests exist

than perhaps at any time in the last century or more. It doesn’t take a forestry specialist to realize that monoculture tree farms—in which one species of tree, often

times non-native to the area, is grown in mass in a small area for maximum

production’do not equate to a healthy forest. Healthy forests are made up of diverse

ecosystems consisting of many native plant and animal species. These healthy ecosystems are what grant humans and all other life forms on the planet with the ability to live. Without clean air, clean water, and healthy soil, life on this planet will

cease to exist. There is an overwhelming battery of evidence that conclusively shows

that we are already well on our path toward massive planetary destruction.

The popular environmental movement in the United States, which arguably began

in the 1960s, has failed to produce the necessary protection needed to ensure that

life on this planet will continue to survive. This is largely due to the fact that the

movement has primarily consisted of tactics sanctioned by the very power structure

that is benefiting economically from the destruction of the natural world. While a

few minor successes in this country should be noted, the overwhelming constant

trend has been the increasingly speedy liquidation of natural resources and annihilation of the environment.

The state sanctioned tactics, that is, those approved by the U.S. government and

the status quo and predominantly legal in nature, rarely, if ever, actually challenge

or positively change the very entities that are responsible for oppression, exploitation, and, in this case, environmental destruction. Throughout the history of the

United States, a striking amount of evidence indicates that it wasn’t until efforts

strayed beyond the state sanctioned that social change ever progressed. In the abolitionist movement, the Underground Railroad, public educational campaigns, in addition to slave revolts, forced the federal government to act. With the Suffragettes in

the United States, individuals such as Alice Paul acting with various forms of civil

disobedience added to the more mainstream efforts to successfully demand the vote

for women. Any labor historian will assert that in addition to the organizing of the

workplace, strikes, riots, and protests dramatically assisted in producing more tolerable work standards. The progress of the civil rights movement was primarily

founded upon the massive illegal civil disobedience campaigns against segregation

and disenfranchisement. Likewise, the true pressure from the Vietnam anti-war

movement in this country only came after illegal activities such as civil disobedience

and beyond were implemented. Perhaps the most obvious, yet often overlooked, historical example of this notion supporting the importance of illegal activity as a tool

for positive, lasting change, came just prior to our war for independence. Our educational systems in the United States glorify the Boston Tea Party while simultaneously failing to recognize and admit that the dumping of tea was perhaps one of

the most famous early examples of politically motivated property destruction.

In the mid–1990s, individuals angry and disillusioned with the failing efforts to

protect the natural environment through state sanctioned means, began taking illegal action. At first, nonviolent civil disobedience was implemented, followed by sporadic cases of nonviolent property destruction. In November 1997, an anonymous

communique ́ was issued by a group called the Earth Liberation Front claiming responsibility for their first-ever action in North America.

Immediately, the label of ecoterrorism appeared in news stories describing the actions of the Earth Liberation Front. Where exactly this label originated is open for

debate, but all indications point to the federal government of the United States in

coordination with industry and sympathetic mass media. Whatever the truth may

be regarding the source of this term, one thing is for certain’the decision to attach

this label to illegal actions taken for environmental protection was very conscious

and deliberate. Why? The need for the U.S. federal government to control and mold

public opinion through the power of propaganda to ensure an absence of threat is

crucial. If information about illegal actions taken to protect the natural environment

were presented openly to the public without biased interpretation, the opportunity

would exist for citizens to make up their own minds about the legitimacy of the tactic, target, and movement. By attaching a label such as ‘‘terrorism’’ to the activities

of groups such as the Earth Liberation Front, the public is left with little choice

but to give into their preconceived notions negatively associated with that term. For

many in this country, including myself, information about terrorism came from

schools and popular culture. Most often times, the definition of terrorism was overtly racist associated frequently in movies and on television shows with Arabs and

the others our government told us were threatening. Terrorism usually is connected

with violence, with politically motivated physical harm to humans.

Yet, in the history of the Earth Liberation Front, both in North America and

abroad in Europe, no one has ever been injured by the group’s many actions. This

is not a mere coincidence, but rather a deliberate decision that illustrates the true

26

motivation behind the covert organization. Simply put and most fundamentally, the

goal of the Earth Liberation Front is to save life. The group takes actions directly

against the property of those who are engaged in massive planetary destruction in

order for all of us to survive. This noble pursuit does not constitute terrorism, but

rather seeks to abolish it.

A major hypocrisy exists when the U.S. government labels an organization such

as the Earth Liberation Front a terrorist group while simultaneously failing to acknowledge its own terrorist history. In fact, the U.S. government by far has been

the most extreme terrorist organization in planetary history. Some, but nowhere

near all, of the examples of domestic terrorism were discussed earlier in this writing. Yet, further proof can be found by taking a glimpse at the foreign policy record

of the United States even as recently as from the 1950s.

In Guatemala (1953–1990s) the CIA organized a coup that overthrew the democratically elected government led by Jacobo Arbenz. This began some 40 years of

death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, totaling well over 100,000

victims. The U.S. government apparently didn’t want Guatemala’s social democracy

spreading to other countries in Latin America.

In the Middle East (1956–1958) the United States twice tried to overthrow the

Syrian government. Additionally, the U.S. government landed 14,000 troops to purportedly keep the peace in Lebanon and to stop any opposition to the U.S. supported

Lebanese government. The U.S. government also conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt.

During the same time, in Indonesia (1957–1958), the CIA tried to manipulate

elections and plotted the assassination of Sukarno, then the Indonesian leader. The

CIA also assisted in waging a full-scale war against the government of Indonesia.

All of this action was taken because Sukarno refused to take a hard-line stand

against communism.

From 1953 to 1964, the U.S. government targeted Cheddi Jagan, then the leader

of British Guiana, out of a fear he might have built a successful example of an alternative model to the capitalist society. The U.S. government, aided by Britain, organized general strikes and spread misinformation, finally forcing Jagan out of power

in 1964.

In Cambodia (1955–1973), Prince Sihanouk was severely targeted by the U.S. government. This targeting included assassination attempts and the unpublicized carpet bombings of 1969 to 1970. The U.S. government finally succeeded in overthrowing Sihanouk in a 1970 coup.

The examples continue. From 1960 through 1965, the United States intervened

in Congo/Zaire. After Patrice Lumumba became Congo’s first Prime Minister following independence gained from Belgium, he was assassinated in 1961 at the request of Dwight Eisenhower. During the same time in Brazil (1961–1964), President

Joao Goulart was overthrown in a military coup, which involved the United States.

Again, the alleged reasoning for U.S. participation amounted to a fear of communism or, more importantly, anything that threatened this country’s way of life.

In the Dominican Republic (1963–1966), the United States sent in 23,000 troops to

help stop a coup which aimed at restoring power to Juan Bosch, an individual the

U.S. government feared had socialist leanings.

Of course, no one should forget about Cuba. When Fidel Castro came to power

in 1959, the United States immediately sought to put another government in place,

prompting some 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, a full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolations, and assassinations.

In Chile, the U.S. government sabotaged Salvador Allende’s electoral campaign in

1964. In 1970, the U.S. government failed to do so and tried for years later to destabilize the Allende government particularly by building up military hostility. In September 1973, the U.S. supported military overthrew the government with Allende

dying in the process. Some 3,000 people were executed and thousands more were

tortured or disappeared. In Greece during the same period (1964–1974), the United

States backed a military coup that led to martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings,

torture, and killings. In the first month, more than 8,000 people died. All of this

was executed with equipment supplied by the United States.

Back in Indonesia in 1965, fears of communism led the United States to back

multiple coup attempts, which resulted in a horrendous massacre against communists. During this time the U.S. embassy compiled lists of communist operatives,

as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the Army. The Army would then

hunt down and kill those on the list.

The U.S. Government also has had its dirty hands connected to East Timor (1975

to present). In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor using U.S. weapons.

By 1989, Indonesia had slaughtered 200,000 people out of a population between

600,000 and 700,000.

27

In Nicaragua (1978–1989), when the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, the U.S. government immediately became involved. President Carter

attempted diplomatic and economic forms of sabotage while President Reagan put

the Contras to work. For eight years, backed by the United States, the Contra’s

waged war on the people of Nicaragua.

Continuing on with Grenada (1979–1984), the United States intervened to stop

a 1979 coup led by Maurice Bishop and his followers. The United States invaded

Grenada in October 1983, killing 400 citizens of Grenada and 84 Cubans. Of course

the Libya example (1981–1989) must be mentioned. In the 1980s, the United States

shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The United

States also dropped bombs on the country killing more than people including

Qaddafi’s daughter. Yet that wasn’t enough as the U.S. government engaged in

other attempts to eradicate Qaddafi. This included a fierce misinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being responsible for the Pan Am

flight 103 bombing without any sound evidence. The U.S. government, also in 1989,

bombed Panama, leaving some 15,000 people homeless in Panama City. Thousands

of people died and even more were wounded.

Prior to the October 7, 2001, invasion of Afghanistan by the United States, the

U.S. government had intervened there from 1979 to 1992. During the late 1970s and

most of the 1980s, the U.S. government spent billions of dollars waging a war on

a progressive Afghani government, merely because that government was backed by

the Soviet Union. More than one million people died, three million were disabled,

and five million became refugees.

In El Salvador (1980–1992), the United States supported the government, which

engaged in electoral fraud and the murder of hundreds of protesters and strikers.

These dissidents, who had been trying to work within the system, took to using

guns and declared a civil war in 1980. The U.S. government played an active role

in trying to stop the uprising. When it was over in 1992, 75,000 civilians had been

killed and the United States had spent six billion dollars.

In Haiti, from 1987 through 1994, the United States supported the Duvalier family dictatorship. During this time, the CIA worked intimately with death squads,

torturers, and drug traffickers. Yugoslavia must also be mentioned, as no one should

ever forget the United States’ responsibility for bombing that country into annihilation.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. government continuously bombed Iraq for more than

40 days and nights. One hundred seventy-seven million pounds of bombs fell during

this time on the people of Iraq. The remaining uranium deposits from weapons resulted in massive birth defects and incidences of cancer. Between 1990 and 1995,

the United States was directly responsible for killing more than 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five due to economic sanctions. Additionally, due to these

sanctions, coupled with the continuous U.S. bombing that has occurred on Iraq since

the Gulf War, more than 1.5 million innocent Iraqi people have been killed.

These few examples since 1950 of U.S.-sponsored and organized terrorism are horrendous, and, unfortunately, these massive murderous tactics continue today. On

October 7, 2001 the U.S. government began a full-scale military invasion of Afghanistan without even providing a shred of factual evidence linking Osama Bin Laden

or Al Qaida to the attacks in this country on September 11. To date, well over 4,000

innocent Afghani civilians have been killed by the U.S. government in this massive

genocidal campaign. All along, U.S. government officials have claimed to possess

concrete evidence proving the guilt of both Bin Laden and Al Qaida, but repeatedly

said they cannot release this ‘‘proof’’ as doing so may endanger the lives of U.S. military personnel. This simply makes no sense, as there could not be any justifiable

threat to U.S. personnel if they weren’t already in inexcusable positions, violating

the sovereignty of internationally recognized nations.

The Taliban, which the United States help put into power in 1994, have stated

repeatedly to the U.S. government and the world that it would hand over Bin Laden

to an international court if the United States provided proof of his guilt. The United

States refused and instead claimed the Taliban was not cooperating and was therefore harboring terrorists.

Can you imagine what would have happened if, prior to September 11, 2001, a

structure in Kabul were bombed and the Taliban immediately suspected CIA director George Tenet as the prime suspect? Would the United States hand over Tenet

to the Taliban if requested if there was not substantial evidence provided of his

guilt? Even if the Taliban supplied any shred of evidence, the United States still

would refuse to hand over Tenet or any privileged citizen to an international court

because the United States does not abide by them or agree to them. Regardless, the

U.S. government believes that it has the right to provide no evidence of Bin Laden’s

28

or Al Qaida’s guilt to the Taliban or the world before launching a massive genocidal

campaign against Afghanistan civilians.

The true motives and the identities of those involved both in September 11, 2001

and October 7, 2001 are known only to a select few in power. However, evidence

does exist in media sources as mainstream as the BBC (reported on September 18,

2001) that suggests the U.S. government was planning a military invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban as early as March 2001. Furthermore, the intended

deadline for the invasion was set for not later than October of the same year. The

October 7, 2001, invasion by the United States into Afghanistan appears to have

been right on schedule.

This war against terrorism, otherwise known as Operation Enduring Freedom, is

the latest example of U.S. based terrorism and imperialism. It is clear that the

events of September 11, 2001, were used as a chance for the U.S. government to

invade Afghanistan, to attempt to increase U.S. regional and global power in addition to open up the much-sought-after oil reserves in the Middle East and Central

Asia. The bonus, of course, was that this mission has given the United States the

opportunity to target and attempt to annihilate any anti–U.S. sentiment within that

region. As the war against terrorism expands, so does the possibility of more U.S.

military bases and more security for the global economic powers.

If the U.S. government is truly concerned with eradicating terrorism in the world,

then that effort must begin with abolishing U.S. imperialism. Members of this governing body, both in the House and Senate as well as those who hold positions in

the executive branch, constitute the largest group of terrorists and terrorist representatives currently threatening life on this planet. The only true service this horrific organization supplies is to the upper classes and corporate elite.

As an innocent child, I used to have faith in my government and pride in my

country. Today I have no pride, no faith, only embarrassment, anger, and frustration. There are definite and substantiated reasons why the U.S. government is not

only disliked but hated by populations in many nations around the globe. The outrage and anger is justified due to the history of U.S. domestic and foreign policies.

Here in the United States, the growth of the empire, of capitalism, and of industry, has meant greater discrepancies between the wealthy and poor, a continued rise

in the number of those considered to be a threat to the system, as well as irreversible harm done to the environment and life on the planet. Corporations in the

United States literally get away with murder, facing little or no repercussions due

to their legal structures. The U.S. government, which sleeps in the same bed as U.S.

corporations, serves to ensure that the ‘‘business as usual’’ policies of imperialism

can continue with as little friction as possible. Anyone questioning the mere logic

of this genocidal culture and governing policy is considered a dissident and, more

often than not, shipped off to one of the fastest growing industries of all, the prison

industrial complex.

Internationally, U.S. policies have amounted to the same, often times worse,

forms of violence. As I demonstrated herein with examples since 1950, the foreign

policy track record has included genocide, assassinations, exploitation, military action, and destruction. Disguised as promoting or protecting freedom and democracy,

U.S. foreign policies aim to directly control and conquer, while gaining power, finances, and resources.

U.S. imperialism is a disease, one that continues to grow and become more powerful and dangerous. It needs to be stopped. One of the chief weapons used by those

protecting the imperialist policies of the United States is a slick, believable propaganda campaign designed to ensure U.S. citizens do not question or threaten the

‘‘American way of life.’’ Perhaps the strongest factor in this campaign is the phenomenon of capitalism. By creating a consumer demand for products, corporations,

greatly aided by the U.S. government, can effectively influence people’s dreams, desires, wants, and life plans. The very American Dream promoted throughout the

world is that anyone can come to the United States, work hard, and become happy

and financially secure. Through the use of the propaganda campaign designed, promoted, and transmitted by the U.S. ruling class, people are nearly coerced into

adopting unhealthy desires for, often times, unreachable, unneeded, and dangerous

consumer goods. Through impressive societal mind control, the belief that obtaining

consumer products will equal security and happiness has spread across the United

States, and much of the planet at this point, like some extreme plague. The fact

that the policies of the United States murder people on a daily basis is unseen, forgotten, or ignored, as every effort is made by people to fit into the artificial model

life manufactured by the ruling elite.

A universal effort needs to be made to understand the importance and execution

of abolishing U.S. imperialism. This by no way refers to simply engaging in reformist efforts, rather, a complete societal and political revolution will need to occur

29

before real justice and freedom become a reality. The answer does not lie in trying

to fix one specific problem or work on one individual issue, but rather the entire

pie needs to be targeted, every last piece looked upon as a mere representation of

the whole.

If the people of the United States, who the government is supposed to represent,

are actually serious about creating a nation of peace, freedom, and justice, then

there must be a serious effort made, by any means necessary, to abolish imperialism

and U.S. governmental terrorism. The daily murder and destruction caused by this

political organization is very real, and so the campaign by the people to stop it must

be equally as potent.

I have been told by many people in the United States to love America or leave

it. I love this land and the truly compassionate people within it. I therefore feel I

not only have a right, but also an obligation, to stay within this land and work for

positive societal and political change for all.

I was asked originally if I would voluntarily testify before the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health at a hearing focused on ‘‘ecoterrorism.’’ I

declined in a written statement. U.S. Marshals then subpoenaed me on October 31,

2001 to testify at this hearing on February 12, 2002, against my will. Is this hearing

a forum to discuss the threats facing the health of the natural environment, specifically the forests? No, clearly there is not even the remotest interest in this subject

from the U.S. government or industry. The goal of this hearing is to discuss methodologies to improve the failed attempts law enforcement have made since the mid–

1990s in catching and prosecuting individuals and organizations who take nonviolent, illegal direct action to stop the destruction of the natural environment. I

have no interest in this cause or this hearing. In fact, I consider it a farce.

Since 1997, the U.S. government has issued me seven grand jury subpoenas, raided my home and work twice, stealing hundreds of items of property, and, on many

occasions, sent federal agents to follow and question me. After this effort, which has

lasted nearly five years, federal agents have yet to obtain any information from me

to aid their investigations. As I have never been charged with one crime related to

these so-called ecoterrorist organizations or their activities, the constant harassment

by the federal government constitutes a serious infringement on my Constitutional

right to freedom of speech. This Congressional Subcommittee hearing appears to be

no different, harassing and targeting me for simply voicing my ideological support

for those involved in environmental protection.

I fully praise those individuals who take direct action, by any means necessary,

to stop the destruction of the natural world and threats to all life. They are the heroes, risking their freedom and lives so that we as a species as well as all life forms

can continue to exist on the planet. In a country so fixated on monetary wealth and

power, these brave environmental advocates are engaging in some of the most selfless activities possible.

It is my sincere desire that organizations such as the Earth Liberation Front continue to grow and prosper in the United States. In fact, more organizations, using

similar tactics and strategies, need to be established to directly focus on U.S. imperialism and the U.S. government itself. For, as long as the quest for monetary gain

continues to be the predominant value within U.S. society, human, animal, and environmental exploitation, destruction, and murder will continue to be a reality. This

drive for profits at any cost needs to be fiercely targeted, and those responsible for

the massive injustices punished. If there is any real concern for justice, freedom,

and, at least, a resemblance of a true democracy, this revolutionary ideal must become a reality. ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE. LONG LIVE THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT. LONG LIVE THE ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT. LONG

LIVE ALL THE SPARKS ATTEMPTING TO IGNITE THE REVOLUTION. SOONER OR LATER THE SPARKS WILL TURN INTO A FLAME!

[Mr. Rosebraugh’s response to questions submitted for the record

follow:]

Response to questions submitted for the record by Craig Rosebraugh

These are Craig Rosebraugh’s responses to questions posed on 3/1/2 by a person

or persons unknown. In the event any response is deemed non-responsive, Mr.

Rosebraugh asserts the following objections, rights, and privileges in declining to

answer all questions posed at the 12 February 2002 Subcommittee on Forests and

Forest Health hearing and to all questions posed by a person or persons unknown

by mail and facsimile on 1 March 2002:

30

Mr. Rosebraugh asserts his right to have the subcommittee’s clearcut ruling on

all objections interposed, and to have an opportunity to respond before a citation

issues should the subcommittee communicate its intent to overrule any objections.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting

the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to U.S. Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the

land or naval forces, or in the Milita, when in actual service in time of War or public

danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to

deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment to U.S. Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited

by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. Tenth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A committee of Congress can have no general powers to probe the affairs of the

citizen.

The penumbral constitutional right to privacy.

The question is double and/or complex, please rephrase it.

The question is asked for an improper purpose, and/or is prejudicial and/or is designed to make witness commit perjury, contempt, or state untruths.

Mr. Rosebraugh is entitled to a transcript of the 12 February 2002 hearing, and

to any other statements made on the record under oath by Mr. Rosebraugh to avoid

inconsistent testimony under oath.

The question is not pertinent or relevant to an authorized subject matter of the

hearing.

The bounds of the power of the committee have been exceeded.

The subcommittee, committee, or the House of Representatives are not authorized

to conduct this hearing or conduct this investigation.

House rules and committee rules do not authorize these questions.

The subcommittee has failed to properly apply the House Rule XI(k)(5) to the effect that it shall investigate the witness in executive session if a public hearing

might unjustly injure the reputation of a witness.

No probable cause existed for the issuance of the subpoena.

The question is unnecessary for the investigation.

1) Do you view violence against individuals, organizations and other enterprises

that work and play on the national forests as a legitimate means of seeking public

policy change, specifically with respect to management of the nation’s forests?

Yes.

2) Do you believe that destroying Forest Service property is a legitimate means

of pursuing public policy change?

Yes.

3) You claim to have never had any role in an ELF related attack, and yet you

loudly proclaim the virtues of ‘‘direct action’’ against government and industry. If

you believe so deeply in ELF’s cause, so much that you encourage and recruit others

to partake in that cause, why aren’t you willing to engage in the acts of environmentally motivated aggression yourself?

I do not adopt any factual assumptions made in the preamble to your question.

I would not be effective as a spokesperson if I were so involved.

4) There is a widely held belief that, if ELF’s attacks continue to increase in frequency and magnitude as they have in recent years on the national forests and

other places, it is very likely only a matter of time before human life is lost. The

FBI has said this, as have many others. Do you share in the view that it’s just a

matter of time before someone is badly hurt or killed by the ELF?

I do not adopt any factual assumptions made in the preamble to your question.

I do not know.

5) Do you still agree with this statement attributed to you in The Bear Deluxe

Magazine? ‘‘If you are talking about fires, and the use of incendiary devices, there

is the danger of people being near or inside that building, or the fire could spread

to another building. There are always dangers.’’

I do not adopt any factual assumptions made in your question. Yes.

31

6) In late October 1996, a Forest Service truck was firebombed, and an incendiary

device that failed to detonate was found planted atop the roof of the Willamette National Forest Building. Fortunately, the device was located and removed and no one

was injured. Are you familiar with this attack on the Willamette National Forest?

You claim that ELF seeks to protect all life on earth, yet if this device had detonated, it is possible—indeed probable—that someone could have been seriously injured or killed. How can ELF reasonably claim to defend all life, and yet so routinely and recklessly endanger it?

I do not adopt any factual assumptions made in the preamble to your question.

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

7) Do you find it disconcerting that, when ELF firebombed forestry research labs

at the Universities of Washington and Minnesota in 2001 and 2002 respectively, the

fire quickly spread to other areas on both campuses, potentially endangering lives

in buildings not targeted by ELF? In the case of the University of Washington, the

fire spread to an adjacent library. And in the case of the University of Minnesota,

the man-made fire spread to a soils testing center in the near vicinity.

I do not find it disconcerting that ELF firebombed, without physically harming

anyone, research into genetic modification of our natural world for profit. Genetic

engineering is a threat to life on this planet. As to the other factual allegations, I

do not know whether or not they are true, so I do not feel comfortable commenting

on them.

8) Are you personally concerned that one day an ELF or ALF perpetrated attack

will wind up killing or wounding someone?

No, I am more concerned with massive numbers of people dying at the hands of

greedy capitalists if such actions are not taken.

9) Do the Earth Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front’s North American Press Office have a tax status? Are they non-profits?

9a) I do not know. Can’t you ask the IRS?

9b) I do not know. Can’t you ask the Oregon Secretary of State?

10) Do the Earth Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front North American Press Office receive outside donations that fund operations, income for ELF

press office employs, travel expenses, legal expenses or other incidental costs? IF so,

what are the sources of these donations?

I do not know.

11) Has the North American Earth Liberation Front ever received direct financial

support from any animal rights or environmental groups to support program activities?

I do not know.

12) Has the Earth Liberation Front Press Office ever received contributions from

the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? Did you ever sign, endorse, cash

or deposit a check from PETA on behalf of the Earth Liberation Front Press Office?

I do not recall.

13) To the best of your knowledge, has the Earth Liberation Front or the Earth

Liberation Front North American Press Office ever filed income tax returns with the

IRS?

I do not know.

14) Did you have any prior knowledge whatsoever that the Earth Liberation Front

intended to destroy the Vail lodge with fire?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

15) Subsequent to the attacks, have you had any conversations, received any written or electronic communications, or acquired any first or second hand information

through any means identifying the perpetrators of the Vail arson?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

16) Hypothetically, if you would have had prior knowledge or after the fact knowledge about the Vail arson, or any other ELF attack, would you report it to the authorities?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

17) Do you know who Michael Conn is?

Michael Conn is a researcher at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center

in Beaverton, Oregon. Conn wastes hundreds of thousands of federal taxdollars torturing and killing monkeys, a practice which has in no way benefited human health.

18) Were you ever arrested for trespassing on the Oregon Regional Primate Center where Mr. Conn works?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

19) Why was there an index card with Mr. Conn’s name and home address in your

residence? Was either ELF or ALF planning to take ‘‘direct action’’ against Mr.

Conn or his property? If not, why was Mr. Conn’s name and address in your possession?

32

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

20) Leslie James Pickering is the new spokesperson for the Earth Liberation

Front. To the best of your knowledge, has Mr. Pickering ever been involved in, had

prior knowledge about, aided, abetted or in any way assisted in the commission of

an ELF or ALF attack?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

21) David Barbarash is the spokesperson for ELF’s sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front. To the best of your knowledge, has Mr. Barbarash ever been

involved in, had prior knowledge about, aided, abetted or in any way assisted in the

commission of an ELF or ALF attack?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

22) Rodney Adam Coronado was convicted for his role in a 1992 arson at Michigan

State University. To the best of your knowledge, has Mr. Coronado been involved

in, had prior knowledge about, aided, abetted or in any way assisted in the commission of an ELF or ALF attack since 1992?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

23) In a September 7, 2001 AP story you said of the February 12 hearing: ‘‘These

people are trying to stop the work of the Earth Liberation Front. I’m not going to

participate in any effort that is going to incarcerate any of the people involved in

the ELF or stop their work.’’ Do you have specific information that might lead to

the incarceration of members of the Earth Liberation Front? If not, why are you

afraid of saying something that might lead to the incarceration of ELF members?

Is this the reason you chose to repeatedly plead the 5th Amendment in response

to questions offered by Members of Congress during the February 12th hearing?

a) No

b) I do not accept your factual assumption in this question. It is clear you want

to incarcerate ELF members. I was stating that I was uninterested in helping you.

c) I do not recall.

24) As you know, several members of this Committee wrote a number of national

environmental groups, urging them to publicly condemn eco-terrorism, ELF, and, by

extension, you. As you also know, all of the organizations did. Does this lack of support among national environmental groups frustrate you? What would you say in

response to their condemnations of ELF and ALF?

Are you asking what I know or telling me? Did you really ask them to condemn

me or did your letter not even mention me? Are you sure all of the organizations

did, or are you exaggerating? Did you select only groups which must rely on the

good graces of Congress for ‘‘success?’’ a) No

b) Throughout the history of social movements globally, struggles have relied

upon a variety of tactics, both legal and illegal in nature. I would hope that if those

groups are actually concerned with stopping the destruction of the natural environment, they would understand and support this diversity.

25) In your press statement about the Vail lodge firebombing, you said that the

area slated for ski-area expansion was some of the last, best lynx habitat in North

America. Do you know how long it has been since anyone—environmentalists, biologists, wildlife enthusiasts—has seen a lynx in the area that you called some of the

last, best habitat for the lynx in North America?

No I do not, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the area is some of the last,

best Lynx habitat in North America.

26) What role if any did you play in creating, writing and speaking in the Earth

Liberation Front training video ‘‘Igniting the Revolution?’’ Who paid the production

costs? What was the underlying purpose of this video?

a) I spoke in it.

b) I do not recall.

c) Educating the public

27) In that video, and in a number of interviews and other written accounts, you

talk about how ELF prefers arson to all other forms of ‘‘direct action’’ because it

inflicts maximum economic and symbolic damage on the target. Please elaborate on

this.

I think this is accurate. I have no further elaboration to offer.

28) In the ELF’s recruitment video and in other public documents, you also talk

about the need to attack symbols of corporate capitalism that promote the spread

of what you call ‘‘the destructive American Dream.’’ Is this correct?

Yes.

29) When you were still serving as the Earth Liberation Front’s Spokesperson, a

Q & A page appeared on ELF’s website called ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions About

the ELF.’’ Is this document familiar to you? Did you write this? If not, do you know

who did?

33

I do not recall.

30) In the ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions’’ piece the authors listed Mt. Rushmore,

the Statue of Liberty and Wall Street on a short list of ‘‘forms and symbols of capitalism [that] can be targeted successfully to greatly influence the impact the capitalist state has on life.’’ Remember, in your video and in other places you have frequently said that firebombing is the best tactic to use in a direct action. Taken together, aren’t you encouraging ELF’s cronies to go out and firebomb the Statue of

Liberty? Since ELF has shown no signs of slowing down since 9–11, do you still

think that, on an abstract level, it would be a good or desirable thing for the ELF

to attack other symbols of capitalism in New York City, like Wall Street offices?

a) I don’t know.

b) Yes.

31) Ted Kazcinski, the Unabomber, admitted in Court that he located his last two

murder victims on published Earth First! hit lists. Kazcinski is now listed on an

Earth Liberation Front related Website (www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk/elf.htm) as a

‘‘Prisoner of War.’’ Do you consider Kazcinski a ‘‘Prisoner of War’’ and a comradein-arms in the struggle against corporate capitalism?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

32) In your opinion, is Kazcinski a member of the Earth Liberation Front?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

33) How do you explain this quote taken directly from an ELF-related website

(www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk/elf.htm)? ‘‘Donations of support (for Kazcinsky) are

needed and sincerely appreciated. If you’d like to send support funds, please write

Dr. Kazcinski (if you’d like to include a few blank sheets of lines writing paper, NO

stamps, it would help him avoid other bureaucratic hassles as well). Thereafter

please send donations as a postal money order, blank cheque, etc. (including his

name and ID number), DIRECTLY to the address listed below.’’ My explanation is that there is an attempt to raise donations for Dr. Kazcinski.

34) How long has ELF asked its membership to write and make donations to

Kazcinski? How does this support for the Unabomber square with ELF’s purported

adherence to non-violence toward humans?

a) I am not aware of the ELF asking its membership to make donations to Dr.

Kazcinski.

b) I don’t know.

35) The Oregonian reported recently that you are attending school at Goddard

College and that your master’s thesis is ‘‘Rethinking Nonviolence: Arguing for the

Legitimacy of Armed Struggle.’’ With regard to your thesis, what do you mean by ‘‘armed struggle?’’ ‘‘Armed’’ in what way? In your thesis, will you argue that the

time has come for armed resistance against the U.S. government?

a) a movement involving political violence.

b) I am not arguing for one specific sort of political violence.

c) I don’t know, it’s still a work in progress.

36) Jeffrey Luers was sentenced last year to 23 years in prison on ecoterrorismrelated charges. Have you ever met or had any direct or indirect contact with Mr.

Luers? What advice would you give this young man as he wastes away in prison

for the next 2-plus decades? Are you at all concerned that your fate may be the

same as Mr. Luers?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

I don’t know.

no.

37) When Luers was asked how he first became involved in eco-terrorism in a recent interview conducted by EarthFirst! Journal, he responded: ‘‘I was radicalized

by anti-authoritarian, anarchist beliefs as well as animal rights. I got involved first

in 1997 working for CalPIRG and canvassing for the Sierra Club’’ Power cedes nothing without demand. The only way to bring about change is to fight for it... Using

fire does two things. It destroys ’the targets,’ which not only stops the destructive

practice they are engaged in, but also causes severe economic damage to those responsible. It also receives media attention. Nothing is more effective at drawing attention to an issue than violence’’ The mainstream media has been all over it, and

sympathetic. I’ve been given a forum to radicalize other people.’’ Do you share these

sentiments?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

38) On January 29, 2002, ELF took credit for firebombing the University of Minnesota’s Microbial and Plant Genomics Research Center, which at the time was

under construction. According to the Dean of the University’s College of Biological

Sciences, the building was being built to house genomics research focused on ‘‘finding ways to reduce use of pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture, find renewable

alternatives to fossil fuels, identify new strategies for cleaning the environment, and

34

preserve ecosystems.’’ In what way is reducing reliance on pesticides and looking for

clean energy alternatives bad for the environment?

I don’t know how those objectives would be bad, but I don’t take the dean’s words

as gospel.

39) What gives the ELF the right to impose its incredibly narrow view of

environmentalism on researchers at the University of Minnesota who have literally

spent their lives searching for ways to keep our environment safe, clean and

healthy? What’s more, what gives ELF’s henchman the right to firebomb another

person’s property based on differences of opinion about what constitutes ‘‘true

environmentalism?’’

I do not agree with your factual assumptions and biased opinions. I am not convinced that researchers at the U of Minnesota have literally spent their lives searching for ways to keep our environment safe, clean, and healthy. I believe the ELF

has the right to uphold natural law, protecting those substances which allow all of

us to survive on the planet—clean air, clean water, and clean, healthy soil.

B) see answer to 39a.

40) The Southern Poverty Law Center, a renowned organization dedicated to the

preservation and enhancement of civil rights, had this to say about the Earth Liberation Front in its Summer 2001 Intelligence Report: ‘‘ELF’s use of underground

violence strongly resembles ex–Klansman Louis Beam’s concept of ‘leaderless resistance.’ The ELF is compiosed of autonomous and secretive ‘cells’ that initiate

terrorist acts independently, and do not communicate with or even know one another’’ like most groups on the radical right today, the ELF sees global capitalism

as the enemy’’ There is an obvious ideological gulf separating the radical right, with

its racist and fascist appeals, from the left-wing, environmentalist Earth Liberation

Front, which advocates ’equality, social justice and’’ compassion for all life.’ But

when it comes to the current economic and political system, the two groups increasingly find themselves on the same side.’’ How do you feel about ELF being compared

to the Klu Klux Klan? Is this an accurate comparison? Do you feel a kinship of

cause with ‘‘racists and fascists,’’ as the Southern Poverty Law Center contends?

A) That is ridiculous and insulting. I would expect the Southern Poverty Law

Center to have more intelligence than that.

B) No.

C) No.

41) Please define ‘‘direct action.’’

A) Something done or accomplished without intermediary agents or conditions.

42) Do acts of eco-terrorism typically follow after a call for ‘‘direct action?’’

I don’t know.

43) When the ELF called for ‘‘direct action’’ to protest this hearing, and included

the photos, names, and addresses of Members of Congress on the same website

(www.protectcivilliberties.com), what was its purpose? Were they seeking to intimidate the Members of this Subcommittee and the witnesses?

A) I was not aware that the ELF ‘‘called for ‘‘direct action’’ to protest this hearing.’’

B) I do not know.

44) Did you play any role in the construction of the aforementioned website calling for ‘‘direct action’’ in conjunction with this hearing? Did you ever have a conversation with anyone regarding the construction of www.protectcivilliberties.com?

A) yes.

B) I don’t recall.

45) You claim that our environment has gotten progressively dirtier over the

years. But the facts don’t support that. The facts tell us that air quality has improved by 64% from 1970–2000, toxins released have declined by 45% between 1988

and 1998, and erosion was reduced 32% between 1982 and 1997. Presently, few

trees are harvested off the National Forests than has been the case in a very, very

long time. Isn’t it true that ELF’s rationale for firebombing homes and schools and

government buildings is grounded in lies and self-serving propaganda rather than

in facts?

No. I question the truth of the above stated ‘‘facts.’’

46) In an ABC News interview last year, you said that ‘‘every single social movement that has actually gained success has used a variety of tactics.’’ In your mind,

then, is ELF’s relationship with mainstream environmental groups akin to a onetwo punch? If so, what is your response to the countless environmental organizations who condemned ELF, and by extension you, prior to the February 12 hearing?

Do you feel any disdain for mainstream environmentalists based on their unwillingness to take direct action to protect the environment?

A) No.

35

B) I am not aware of countless environmental organizations codemning me and

ELF prior to the February 12 hearing. I prefer to respond to groups after I know

what they have said. Can you please send me each organization’s response?

C) No.

47) An Indiana based Internet news-service (Nuvo.net) ran a story on ELF following an April 30, 1999 ELF attack on construction and logging equipment associated with a highway expansion project near Bloomington, Indiana. The story featured the comments of an individual associated with an environmental group called

Valley Watch. With regard to ELF’s attack on the construction site, he said’’ ‘‘As

a non-violent environmental activist, I can tell you that’s not my style. But we’re

all upping our pressure these days, and I can certainly understand the frustration

that leads someone to take these kinds of actions’’ I’m not going to condone ELF,

but I’m not going to condemn them either. After all, violence against property is not

violence against people.’’ Publicly, the vast majority of mainstream environmental

groups have condemned ELF, and you personally for that matter. Do you think a

lot of mainstream above ground environmental groups share the sentiments of this

individual from Valley Watch, public condemnations notwithstanding?

I have no idea.

48) On April 30, 2000 ELF, through you Mr. Rosebraugh, took credit for sabotaging construction and logging equipment used for a highway expansion project 45

miles from Indianapolis, Indiana. Do you remember issuing a statement of credit

for ELF in conjunction with the Indiana attack?

I don’t recall.

49) In an interview with an Indiana Internet news provider (www.nuvo.net) following the aforementioned attack, you went beyond merely admitting that ELF was

responsible for the April 30 siege. You told the news outlet this: ‘‘I wouldn’t be surprised to see more ELF direct action in the future over there.’’ Those comments are

interesting because exactly two months later, on June 30, ELF took part in a largescale tree spiking in the same great State of Indiana, just as you had forecasted.

Your prediction of additional attacks on April 30 was one of three things: (1) an incredibly good guess; (2) a prescient moment on your part; or (3) the product of direct

knowledge that ELF would attack again in the area. Which one was it: a good

guess, a prescient moment or direct knowledge?

A good guess.

50) Who first contacted you about serving as the spokesperson for the Earth Liberation Front? How did he/she contact you?

Jesus Christ

It was a spiritual sort of thing.

51) During the time you served as spokesperson for the Earth Liberation Front,

how did you support yourself?

muffins.

52) During your time with the Earth Liberation Front Press Office, how large was

the staff? If there were other staff, were they volunteers or working on a paid basis?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

53) Why did you resign as a spokesperson for the Earth Liberation Front?

To step back from the spotlight and allow others to come forward and demonstrate their ideological and philosophical support of the ELF.

54) Do you still communicate with the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front Press Offices? If so, how often?

See all objections, rights, and privileges asserted above.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Rosebraugh.

Under those circumstances, we will now proceed with questions

from the Committee, and I will begin the questions.

Are you currently affiliated with the Earth Liberation Front?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, did you play any role in creating,

writing or speaking in the Earth Liberation Front training video

‘‘Igniting the Revolution?’’

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, is that your voice on that training

film?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

36

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, do you share in the view that it

is just a matter of time before someone is badly hurt or killed by

the Earth Liberation Front?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, you have retained counsel. Who

is paying your attorney fees to be represented today?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Are those fees being paid by the Earth Liberation

Front?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Do you agree with this statement, Mr.

Rosebraugh? Quote: ‘‘If you are talking about fire and the use of

incendiary devices, there’s a danger of people being near or inside

the building, or the fire could spread to another building. There are

always dangers,’’ unquote.

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Do you acknowledge that you made that statement, that is a quote given by you?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, do you find it disconcerting that

when Earth Liberation Front members firebombed forestry research labs at the Universities of Washington and Minnesota in

2001 and 2002, respectively, the fire quickly spread to other areas

on both campuses, potentially endangering lives and buildings not

targeted by Earth Liberation Front?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Do the Earth Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front’s North American press office have tax status?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Are they nonprofits?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Do the Earth Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front North American Press Office receive outside donations that fund operations income for ELF press office employees,

travel expenses, legal expenses or other incidental costs?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. If so, what are the sources of those donations?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Does the North American Earth Liberation Front

ever receive direct financial support from any animal rights or environmental groups to support program activities?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, do you know a Michael Kahn?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, were you ever arrested for trespassing on the Oregon Regional Primate Center where Mr. Kahn

works?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. The Committee’s information, Mr. Kahn is a special assistant to the president of the Oregon Health and Sciences

University. According to published reports, the FBI found a file

card in Mr. Rosebraugh’s home during a court-ordered search, with

Mr. Kahn’s name and home address written on it. According to Mr.

37

Kahn, Mr. Rosebraugh had been previously arrested for trespassing at Mr. Kahn’s university research lab.

Mr. Rosebraugh, why was there an index card with Mr. Kahn’s

name and home address in your residence?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Was either ELF or ALF planning to take direct action against Mr. Kahn or his property?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Are you planning any future acts that would violate the law of the state or the United States?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, do you know a Leslie James Pickering?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Is Mr. Pickering the new spokesman for the Earth

Liberation Front?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. To the best of your knowledge has Mr. Pickering

ever been involved in, had prior knowledge, aided, abetted, or in

any way assisted in the commission of an ELF or ALF attack?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, may I make an inquiry?

Mr. MCINNIS. Yes.

Mr. INSLEE. I note that the witness has provided a statement to

the Committee. And I am wondering if the Committee has given

any thought whether the witness has waived his Fifth Amendment

privileges by essentially providing information. And I make that

point of inquiry. I don’t know how we are going to resolve this at

this moment, but in the event that a court ever investigates this,

I would like to make it a point that the witness has provided information, and that may result in a waiver of his Fifth Amendment

rights in regard to the Committee’s inquiry.

It is something that, Mr. Rosebraugh, I think you should consider, and obviously your counsel as well. From my knowledge of

it, my understanding of the law is that once the witness has provided information pursuant to request, and you have arrived as a

result of subpoena, that you have in fact waived that right. And I

just wonder if you or your counsel might address that issue

because this may come up at a later legal context, and I would invite you to address that or your attorney to, if you think that is

appropriate, Mr. Chair.

Mr. MCINNIS. I am not clear, Mr. Inslee. Are you directing a

question? I would be happy to yield some time to you. Are you directing a question to Mr. Rosebraugh?

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I think it would be important for the Committee to give Mr. Rosebraugh or his attorney—tell us why you

have not waived the Fifth Amendment since you have provided this

Committee with information?

My understanding is, at least in certain context, once a witness

has provided information subject to an inquiry—and you have arrived as a result of subpoena—you no longer have the right to

claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. And I think perhaps for future reference, perhaps you or your attorney should address that

issue for the Committee. If I may inquire that, Mr. Chair?

38

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, that would be appropriate during your

questioning.

Let me also advise counsel that counsel is not allowed to testify

in front of the Committee. Counsel’s rights in front of the Committee are restricted to advising your client of legal rights that he

has, and even that advice is restricted simply to the constitutional

amendment of self-incrimination. So, counsel won’t be able to answer that, but if you would like to direct your questions at a later

point, Mr. Inslee, you are more than welcome to.

Mr. INSLEE. Are you done with your inquiry or would you like

to—

Mr. MCINNIS. No. I will reclaim my time.

Let me ask of the witness here. In September 7th, 2001 Associated Press said that you said of today’s hearing: ‘‘These people are

trying to stop the work of the Earth Liberation Front. I’m not going

to participate in any effort that is going to incarcerate any of the

people involved in ELF or stop their work.’’ Mr. Rosebraugh, do you have any specific information that might

lead to the incarceration of members of the Earth Liberation Front?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Rosebraugh, if not, are you concerned that any

of the statements that you might make might lead to the incarceration of an Earth Liberation member?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. For the record, and to make it very clear to the

witness, any person who has been summoned as a witness before

a duly authorized congressional Committee, who, quote: ‘‘refuses to

answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry,’’ unquote, subject to fine, imprisonment of up to 1 year, 2 United

States Code 192.

Do you still refuse to answer the questions that were presented

to you?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, you may proceed.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rosebraugh, you heard my concern about the issue of waiver

of the Fifth Amendment. I would ask either you or your counsel to

address this issue.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, let me clarify for you that counsel is

not before this Committee as a witness. The counsel will not be allowed to testify on behalf of his client. If Mr. Rosebraugh wishes

to answer your question, he may. Counsel’s role in here is strictly

restricted to advising his client of his constitutional right under the

Fifth Amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate you trying to save Mr. Rosebraugh some

legal fees.

Mr. Rosebraugh, let me just ask you. Why do you believe you

have not waived the Fifth Amendment, even though you have already provided the Committee information through a rather comprehensive statement?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Sir, on that particular question, I’ll take the

Fifth Amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Might call that a Catch-22, it sounds like.

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. You might.

39

Mr. INSLEE. I just want to ask you a few questions, and perhaps

it is more of a statement than anything, but I just want to read

you a statement about Martin Luther King.

Mr. King was dealing with frustration about Federal Government policies back in the ’60’s, and he said, quote: ‘‘The limitation

of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their

participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis,

but it must be followed by a sense of futility.’’ Close quote. Do you

agree with that statement?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Rosebraugh, are you familiar with a group of

people in the State of Washington a couple years back who were

concerned about the treatment of animals, and they had a couple

choices available to them. They could go down and burn a building

down or blow something up, or they could work through the democratic process and bring in an initiative. And they brought an initiative and they changed the law regarding trapping of animals,

prohibited trapping in certain circumstances of cougars and the

like, and they succeeded in a democratic method of changing the

law of the State of Washington. Rather than doing it through violence, they did it through the ballot box. Are you familiar with

that?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Is it fair to say you are going to take the Fifth

Amendment of everything we ask you here today?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Again, sir, I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Hansen?

Mr. HANSEN. I have no questions.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Holt?

Mr. HOLT. I think it would not be productive to ask questions at

this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Peterson?

Mr. PETERSON. I will pass.

Mr. MCINNIS. Ms. McCollum?

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am just curious.

This written testimony, sir, written testimony supplied to the

U.S. House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health for the

February 12th, 2002, Hearing on Eco-terrorism. Your name is on

it, that it is submitted to the House on February 7th, 2002. Is this

your document?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Well, I submitted a document. I am not sure

if that particular document is the one I submitted.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, we usually don’t fool around with evidence.

So, Mr. Chair, I won’t bother to ask any questions. But let me

just read a couple lines from the last page of this document.

Mr. MCINNIS. Perhaps it would be appropriate if the document

were shown to the gentleman so he can affirm that that is the document that they have submitted. Would some member of the staff

take a copy?

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

40

Mr. MCINNIS. That way we know what we are talking about so

we won’t have that issue come up later.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am sure we are thorough, Mr. Chair. Your

staff is very careful.

Mr. MCINNIS. I know, but I want to make it very clear.

Mr. Rosebraugh, is that in fact the document that you submitted

to the Committee?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Well, I have not had a chance to read it over

yet. I’ll take the Fifth.

Mr. MCINNIS. You may proceed, Ms. McCollum.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I was reading

through this rather quickly, but page 11 really caught my attention

to my colleagues here. Second to the last paragraph.

Quote: ‘‘I fully praise those individuals who take direct action, by

any means necessary, to stop the destruction of the natural world

and threats to all life.’’ Last paragraph, quote: ‘‘It’s my sincere desire that organizations

such as the Earth Liberation Front continue to grow and prosper

in the United States. In fact, more organizations, using similar tactics and strategies, need to be established to directly focus on U.S.

imperialism and the U.S. Government itself.’’ End of quote.

Mr. Chair, you have before you something that we are going to

be submitting into the record from the University of Minnesota.

Our College of Biological Sciences suffered an attack, and that’s

what it was, on January 28th, by the Earth Liberation Front. They

took full claim for this action. It has been in the newspaper, it has

been widely reported. On the morning of Saturday, January 26th,

incendiary devices were placed in a construction trailer. There was

$250,000 worth of damage done that does not include the loss of

research which has not been totaled yet. There were no deaths or

injuries, but it is not uncommon for faculty and graduate students

to work in labs after hours, evenings and weekends. The University

of Minnesota is an extraordinarily urban setting.

So, Mr. Chair, our witness doesn’t even appear to want to even

state for the record that these are his words that he provided for

the Committee. I quote again from his testimony on page 11. ‘‘It

is my sincere desire that organizations such as the Earth Liberation Front continue to grow and prosper in the United States. In

fact, more organizations, using similar tactics and strategies, need

to be established to directly focus on U.S. imperialism and the U.S.

Government itself.’’

Mr. Chair, the State of Minnesota, as we are meeting, is meeting

in their legislative session, and they are looking at passing state

versions of the terrorist bill such as are before us.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the hearing. It is most unfortunate that

the witness now will not recognize his own words that he provided

the Committee.

Mr. MCINNIS. Do I have any other member of the Committee

that wishes to ask questions? Yes, Mr. Duncan, you may proceed.

Mr. DUNCAN. I won’t ask any questions, Mr. Chairman, but I

do—and I don’t waste the time of the Subcommittee, but I do want

to thank you for calling this hearing, and I want to associate myself with your remarks and those of Chairman Hansen, particularly

his remarks about working within the system. There is a right way

41

to do things and there is a wrong way to do things, and there is

a legal way to do things and an illegal way.

And I have noticed for several years now that environmental extremism in this country has hurt, has very much hurt the poor and

the lower income and the working people of this country by destroying jobs and driving up prices. That is who these people are

hurting. And they are really hurting the cause that they profess to

believe in by resorting to violence and the extremism that causes

I think most people to think that they probably sick, and probably

need some help to resort to the tactics that these people have used.

And so I thank you for calling this hearing and I hope we can

move on very quickly to the legitimate witnesses, who have the

guts and the courage to stand up for what they believe in, and not

hide behind the Fifth Amendment. Thank you very much.

Mr. INSLEE. Will the gentleman yield just for a minute?

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me say this. I think, Mr. Inslee, that you

may have had a good point about the waiving the Fifth Amendment privilege when you made your statement a while ago.

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that comment. I just want to elaborate

on something you said about, that I agree with, in that this type

of action is damaging to those, including myself, who have been

working on environmental values in U.S. Congress.

And the reason I said that is instead of looking at issues today,

why the U.S. Forest Service has not historically enforced environmental laws, why they have only done so when required to by the

courts, why the administration has taken some actions on environmental issues that we believe of damaging to the environment, instead of focusing on those issues, here we are today focusing on the

fact that these folks burned down an educational building in the

University of Washington. That does not help the environmental

movement in this country. It hurts it. And that is why being angry

about this, the folks that ought to be the angriest about it are those

like myself who are fighting to protect the roadless area, who are

fighting for clean water acts, who are fighting for mining reform.

And that is why this is a bipartisan issue because this does not

help our agenda.

And I appreciate your comment. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Ms. Hooley?

Ms. HOOLEY. No questions.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Simpson?

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I would just I guess respond a little bit. I don’t think the

administration, quite frankly, has been anti-environmental by any

stretch of the imagination. In fact, many of the things we’ve been

doing have been in accordance with the law because the previous

administration and their roadless policy did not follow the law as

the law is written. But I just want to say—

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Simpson, Mr. Simpson, I would like to restrict

our remarks to the witness and not a debate amongst members.

Mr. SIMPSON. We will, and I appreciate that.

I just want to say it is very nice to have a witness who has such

concise and consistent testimony.

[Laughter.]

42

Mr. SIMPSON. You don’t find that very often, but it is also nice

to have a witness that is so proud of the work that he does that

he refuses to talk about it.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Tancredo?

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just two quick questions in light of Mr. Inslee’s remarks.

Mr. Rosebraugh, you have heard Mr. Inslee articulately state the

concern he has about the damage that he believes your lack of responsiveness here today may have on the environmental movement.

With that in mind, would you now take the opportunity to disavow any of the statements that you submitted to this Committee

through your written testimony?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO. Would you take this opportunity to advise those

groups that do take the law into their own hands, commit acts of

violence to further their own cause, would you take this opportunity to ask them to stop that, and recognizing that, as Mr. Inslee

says, they are doing no justice to your cause?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Hayworth.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rosebraugh, when we look at the written statement that has

your name attached to it, despite your Fifth Amendment response,

appears to be authentic from you, and hearing the gentlelady from

Minnesota read from it, I am especially struck by the final statements in all capital letters for emphasis. Let me quote now: ‘‘ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE. LONG LIVE THE EARTH

LIBERATION FRONT. LONG LIVE THE ANIMAL LIBERATION

FRONT. LONG LIVE ALL THE SPARKS ATTEMPTING TO IGNITE THE REVOLUTION. SOONER OR LATER THE SPARKS

WILL TURN INTO A FLAME!’’ Mr. Rosebraugh, is that a call to revolutionary action?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment on that question.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Rosebraugh, do you believe that arson and

violence are reasonable expressions in a free society?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Rosebraugh, I would bring to your attention

and that of the full Committee and those who join us today, the

lead story in my hometown newspaper, ‘‘The Arizona Republic.’’

‘‘Preserves Arsonist Sentenced 18 Years for Torching Homes.’’ This

man, Mark Sands, convicted and sentenced yesterday by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, had something to say that perhaps would

be advisable to take into account, especially those who may be inclined toward violence and anarchy and eco-terrorism.

Quoting Mark Sands now, convicted of these fires. Quote: ‘‘I believe then, and yes, it was arrogant, that the fires and threats

would make a difference.’’ Continuing his quote: ‘‘There is no environmental or religious excuse for terrorism of any kind.’’ Close

quote.

Yes, a witness does have a right to plead the Fifth Amendment,

to talk about the necessity of doing so to ensure against self-reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
43

crimination. It is constitutional, but the irony that we see here

today is the employment of the Fifth Amendment in a way where

if one’s name is attached and one has the courage of one’s convictions, shouldn’t it follow that they have the courage to risk conviction?

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCINNIS. The Chair points out to the Committee at this

point in time, just because someone pleads the Fifth Amendment

doesn’t mean that the individual is entitled to the Fifth Amendment for the specific question that has been asked, so I would advise the members that if you feel a question, that you would like

to ask him a question of which pleading the Fifth Amendment

would not be an appropriate response, we do intend to take full

course on this matter, any legal counsel subsequent to the meeting.

So I would advise the Committee to ask those questions.

So, Mr. Otter, if you have any questions, you may proceed.

Mr. OTTER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I don’t have any questions, because I believe I have already heard the response that I am going to get. But I would just

make an observation, and that is, that it seems just a little uncommitted, I guess, to the cause for the very person who will now run

and hide behind the Constitution and the laws of the United

States, thought so little of them when they were the laws and the

Constitution that protected other people’s properties and other

people’s rights. There is no commitment there, and don’t fool yourself into thinking there is one.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Walden.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am tempted to ask the witness, given his response to the various questions, if he is in any way related to Ken Lay.

[Laughter.]

Mr. WALDEN. Who seems to be taking his own share of Fifth

Amendment answers. Are you in any way related?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll have to take the Fifth Amendment on that,

sir.

Mr. WALDEN. I thought maybe you would. Mr. Rosebraugh, you

say that the environmental movements failed to ensure the necessary protection either to ensure life on this planet will continue

to survive. What protections are needed?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment on that question.

Mr. WALDEN. Is there something in that question that would

somehow incriminate you by answering?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Sir, on that question I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. What actions can society, industry or government

officials take that would satisfy the needs you’ve outlined in your

testimony?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment on that question.

Mr. WALDEN. There is something in my question that would

cause you to incriminate yourself?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Once again, I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

44

Mr. WALDEN. You state there are a large number of threatened

endangered species present on national forests because large-scale

destruction of their habitat has decimated their ecosystem. Studies

indicate the large number of threatened endangered species

present on the national forest is because these forests represent a

refuge of the habitats required.

What evidence do you have that the national forests are decimated ecosystems rather than havens of refuge for stresses species?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Do you see any positive role for science in society

today?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Is there anything in that question that would cause

you to incriminate yourself before this Committee?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. How would you see it appropriate for humans to

seek knowledge of the world around us?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Rosebraugh, are you familiar with the recent

communique ́ from the Earth Liberation Front claiming responsibility for the arson of a construction site on the St. Paul campus

of the University of Minnesota?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Are you familiar with any of the communique ́s,

some of which bear your name regarding the arson that occurred

in Oregon in the last half a dozen years?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Have you ever given an interview to anybody in

the press regarding any of ELF’s activities?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I will take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to something my

colleague from Arizona said, quoting from testimony supplied by

Mr. Rosebraugh to the Committee.

And again, in emphasis it says: ‘‘ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE. LONG LIVE THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT. LONG

LIVE THE ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT. LONG LIVE ALL

THE SPARKS ATTEMPTING TO IGNITE THE REVOLUTION.

SOONER OR LATER THE SPARKS WILL TURN INTO A

FLAME!’’ Mr. Rosebraugh, I am quoting from what is supposed to be your

testimony. Is that an accurate quote from your testimony?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. You won’t even tell us if the testimony I am reading from that bears your name is your own testimony to this Committee?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Like I just said, sir, I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. And this is the testimony that was again provided

for your review, but you can’t tell us whether these are your words?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Once again I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Was I correct in hearing though earlier, you did indicate that you did submit testimony to this Committee; is that not

correct?

45

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. So now you won’t even tell us whether or not what

you told us before is correct?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. As comical as it may seem, I will take the

Fifth Amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. This is a very serious question. I am trying to figure out if this is your testimony. My Ken Lay comment might have

been comical on its face for some.

Mr. Chairman, I see no further point in proceeding with this witness at this time. All we get is the Fifth Amendment. So I yield

back whatever time I may have left.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rosebraugh, are you a citizen of the United States of America?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Were you to answer that question, therefore— Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Nethercutt, may I interrupt for a moment,

please?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Sure.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. I appreciate you yielding to the Chair.

Counsel, it may be an appropriate time for you to advise your client. Obviously, there are questions being asked here which do not

fall under the protection of the Fifth Amendment. For example, ‘‘Do

you believe in science?’’ ‘‘Are you a citizen of the United States of

America?’’ If counsel would like a moment to visit with his client, I will

allow that. I want counsel to be advised we will pursue this type

of behavior in front of Congress. It is not going to be acceptable behavior. There are questions he can answer, as counsel knows, that

fall outside the scope of that protection. Does counsel wish to advise his client?

[Pause as Mr. Sugarman advises Mr. Rosebraugh.]

Mr. MCINNIS. Obviously, it is the Committee’s intent not to have

you incriminate yourself but to have a legitimate discussion, and

I would advise the witness that this is exactly the kind of forum

under which you are allowed to project some of your views and we

can have those kind of discussions. Clearly, we have very intense

debate over on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we

are able to carry those out in a civil way, and I would hope that

we could do that today.

Mr. Nethercutt, if you would like to proceed or start again with

your question?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, I would restate my question, sir. Are you

a citizen of the United States of America?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. And do you agree that the United States Constitution is the law of the land?

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment on that question.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. So in taking the Fifth Amendment on that

question, you, by answering affirmatively to that question, would

you believe that you would be somehow incriminating yourself; is

that correct?

46

Mr. ROSEBRAUGH. I’ll take the Fifth Amendment to that one as

well.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an answerable

question.

Mr. MCINNIS. Let me tell you what the intent of the Committee

is, Mr. Nethercutt. Obviously, the witness has no intention of cooperating in any sense whatsoever, and it is not a surprise. But it

is not without repercussions. There are legal repercussions to the

action that the gentleman is taking.

What we will do is we will submit written questions. Makes it

easier for us, more difficult for him. We will submit written questions to the witness, under which we will ask the witness to answer. If the witness refuses to answer or pleads—by pleading the

Fifth Amendment, we will resubmit the questions. If he at that

point in time refuses, then this Committee will meet and go over

those questions and have a vote on whether to issue a contempt of

Congress. I fully intend to proceed with that.

Fortunately, today we have a number of witnesses who are very

cooperative and who want to discuss this matter with us. I think

this is a waste of time. Again, not a surprise. I do want to wrap

this up.

Mr. Rosebraugh, you have a couple of people that you probably

know who were just sentenced in Santa Cruz, California. And I

want you to know that here’s what their response was at the sentencing. Pausing frequently to keep his composure Whyte told the

Court, ‘‘I have a lot of regret for what I’ve done. I know there are

better ways to go about creating change.’’ He was one of yours. He’s now come across.

Another one, Schnell. ‘‘I still definitely believe in compassion toward animals. I am ready to make a change in my life, ready to

take responsibility. I have much regret.’’ Mr. Rosebraugh, I look forward to the day that you cross that

line and put your energy and your efforts into a constructive fashion, because, frankly, as Mr. INSLEE said, you can be to the benefit of the environmental movement instead of taking away from

the credibility of the organization that I suppose you probably believe pretty strongly in.

If there are any additional questions of the Committee—I will be

submitting written questions—I invite any member of the Committee to submit questions to the chief-of-staff and—pardon me,

Mr. Otter, do you have a question?

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair?

Mr. MCINNIS. Yes.

Mr. OTTER. Would that be within the next 5 days?

Mr. MCINNIS. Well, we are not limited, but just for the logistics

in the next 5 or 10 days, if you would submit written questions

that you would like submitted to the witness, we will proceed with

that.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MCINNIS. Yes, Mr. Inslee?

Mr. INSLEE. I just wanted to advise the Committee, since we

have been talking about this, I asked counsel to check with the

parliamentarian, the House parliamentarian, who advised that givVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
47

ing a written statement does not waive the Fifth Amendment, and

I just think this is something we ought to as a Committee look at

and try to get resolution of before our next meeting. Because the

opinion I ventured may or may not be accurate. The parliamentarian seems to think it is not. So I think we just need to get that

resolved before our next meeting.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, I agree with you. The written questions

does not require the witness to waive his Fifth Amendment rights.

We are not asking him to waive those rights. What the written

questions do is allow us to differentiate between questions which

legitimately fall within the Fifth Amendment and those questions

which fall outside the ability of the witness to plead the Fifth

Amendment.

So my point in submitting the—let me say here, Fifth Amendment to protect another person. Fifth Amendment privileges are

personal and cannot be invoked on behalf of another person, which

he has invoked during this questioning. They cannot be invoked on

behalf of a corporation, which he has done in this questioning, or

of an artificial entity.

So my point is, we will submit him written questions. I suppose

he will probably take the Fifth, although I hope he doesn’t, but if

he does, we will then determine with a Committee meeting which

of those questions fall within his rights of the Fifth and which fall

outside of it. Those that fall outside of it, I will then ask the Committee for a vote of contempt of Congress on those particular questions, but we are not asking him to waive his right, nor do we

think he has waived his right by receiving written questions.

I thank the witness. The witness is excused.

Mr. MCINNIS. And now I will introduce the witnesses on our

third panel. On Panel III. and the Committee I think will find this

a little more constructive. On Panel III we have Mr. James Jarboe,

Section Chief, Domestic Terrorism/Counterterrorism Planning Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Mr. Porter Wharton III, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Vail Associates, Inc., and a

long-time friend of mine, welcome; Mr. Michael Hicks, Northwest

Oregon Area Logging Manager, Boise Cascade Corporation; Mr.

Rick Berman, Executive Director of The Center for Consumer Freedom.

Now, I would like to do the same with the new panel. If you

would just please stand and raise your right hand, I will administer the oath.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are

about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

truth, so help you God?

MEMBERS OF PANEL III. I do.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, you may be seated.

I remind the witnesses again about the 5-minute rule, and I

would ask Mr. Jarboe for his statement. You may proceed, sir.

48

STATEMENT OF JAMES F. JARBOE, SECTION CHIEF,

COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, DOMESTIC TERRORISM/

COUNTERTERRORISM PLANNING SECTION, FEDERAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. JARBOE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Committee members. I have submitted a written statement. I won’t read that to the

record in the interest of time, but I would like to make a couple

very short comments before we begin, and then I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

First of all, the FBI considers the definition of ‘‘terrorism’’ to be

unlawful use or threatened use of violence by a group or individual

committed by—

Mr. MCINNIS. If I might, I am sorry. This microphone doesn’t

work so well. Could you begin your statement again, and a little

closer to the mike? Thank you, sir.

Mr. JARBOE. Certainly. Again, in the interest of time, I won’t

read my written statement, but I will submit that.

I’d like to define ‘‘terrorism’’ as far as the FBI’s perspective goes.

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of violence by a

group of individual committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any

segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

If Mr. Rosebraugh had chosen to testify, I’m sure he would have

told the panel, which is evident from his written statement, that

he and ALF/ELF do not consider the actions that they take to be

acts of violence.

These direct actions, I submit, are acts of violence. You can ask

any fireman who’s responded to one of the arsons, and is more eloquently stated by the Members of Congress who testified before

me, have covered that territory.

We can also ask the business persons whose businesses are destroyed, the new homeowners whose homes are destroyed by arson

before they’re completed, whether they believe ALF/ELF actions

are acts of violence. I would submit that they would.

We can document approximately or in excess of $43 million of

damage from 1996 to the present that have taken place by these

acts of violence and acts of lawlessness, not to mention the untold

amount of time and money and effort that’s been lost through the

destruction of research projects, and we have no way of knowing

what would have been the results of those research projects, should

they have come to completion, how beneficial that would have been

to society.

The way we’re attacking the ALF/ELF issue is primarily through

our Joint Terrorism Task Force, as we have 44 JTTFs throughout

the FBI right now in 44 of our 56 field offices. With additional

funding that we’ve recently received, we are pushing to get JTTFs

in all 56 field offices by the end of this year.

There have been a small number of arrests. I know that’s very

frustrating to the public. It’s very frustrating to us as well. There

are a few reasons why that happens. Constitutional guarantees, it’s

a thin line to walk between constitutionally guaranteed activity

and criminal activity, and we must make every effort not to step

over that line and violate citizens’ rights.

49

We also have learned, and everyone I believe is aware, that

there’s no defined hierarchal structure within ALF/ELF. It’s a very

loose knit group, a cell, persons, two, three, four get together, plan

an act, do it, and then claim it on the part of ALF/ELF without a

hierarchical structure as you would find in La Cosa Nostra or some

other organized crime entity. Very, very difficult to get into the

group and do routine investigations that we’d like to in a more sophisticated level.

The major concern I have with this group, is if you look at the

history of the ALF movement, ELF movement, the Animal Liberation Front, et cetera, they started out rather peaceful in their demonstrations to stop fox hunting in England. Same thing on the environmental front for ELF. But over the course of time, splinter

groups within the body have been frustrated with the lack of action

or lack of intensity of action on the part of the main body, have

split off and have taken more intense action, more violent action,

if you will. This splintering has continued over the course of time,

and it is still continuing.

What we have seen in other civil disturbance areas is as time

passes, those who become frustrated with the quote/unquote mainstream of these elements will take the next step. If this continues,

then the violence that we’ve seen now is just a shadow of what’s

coming, and I think that’s probably the most dangerous thing that

we can see on the future horizon, and we certainly are putting a

tremendous amount of effort into slowing this down and stopping

it.

The only thing that we’ve had to really put us behind what we

expected to have in place by now are the events of September 11th,

when we threw every resource that we had into that attack, and

followed shortly after by the anthrax attack.

We’re regrouping now, and ALF/ELF is at the top of my list as

far as domestic terrorism issues to address, and I can ensure the

members here that this issue will be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarboe follows:]

Statement of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief,

Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN MCINNIS, VICE–CHAIRMAN PETERSON,

CONGRESSMAN INSLEE AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. I AM

PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND DISCUSS THE THREAT POSED BY ECO–TERRORISM, AS WELL AS THE MEASURES BEING TAKEN BY THE FBI AND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS

TO ADDRESS THIS THREAT.

THE FBI DIVIDES THE TERRORIST THREAT FACING THE UNITED STATES

INTO TWO BROAD CATEGORIES, INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC. INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVOLVES VIOLENT ACTS OR ACTS DANGEROUS

TO HUMAN LIFE THAT ARE A VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE

UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE, OR THAT WOULD BE A CRIMINAL VIOLATION IF COMMITTED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES

OR ANY STATE. ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ARE INTENDED TO

INTIMIDATE OR COERCE A CIVILIAN POPULATION, INFLUENCE THE POLICY OF A GOVERNMENT, OR AFFECT THE CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENT.

THESE ACTS TRANSCEND NATIONAL BOUNDARIES IN TERMS OF THE

MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHED, THE PERSONS THEY APPEAR INTENDED TO INTIMIDATE, OR THE LOCALE IN WHICH PERPETRATORS OPERATE.

50

DOMESTIC TERRORISM IS THE UNLAWFUL USE, OR THREATENED USE,

OF VIOLENCE BY A GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL BASED AND OPERATING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES (OR ITS TERRITORIES) WITHOUT

FOREIGN DIRECTION, COMMITTED AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY TO

INTIMIDATE OR COERCE A GOVERNMENT, THE CIVILIAN POPULATION, OR

ANY SEGMENT THEREOF, IN FURTHERANCE OF POLITICAL OR SOCIAL OBJECTIVES.

DURING THE PAST DECADE WE HAVE WITNESSED DRAMATIC CHANGES

IN THE NATURE OF THE TERRORIST THREAT. IN THE 1990s, RIGHT–WING

EXTREMISM OVERTOOK LEFT–WING TERRORISM AS THE MOST DANGEROUS DOMESTIC TERRORIST THREAT TO THE COUNTRY. DURING THE

PAST SEVERAL YEARS, SPECIAL INTEREST EXTREMISM, AS CHARACTERIZED BY THE ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT (ALF) AND THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT (ELF), HAS EMERGED AS A SERIOUS TERRORIST THREAT.

GENERALLY, EXTREMIST GROUPS ENGAGE IN MUCH ACTIVITY THAT IS

PROTECTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH AND

ASSEMBLY. LAW ENFORCEMENT BECOMES INVOLVED WHEN THE VOLATILE TALK OF THESE GROUPS TRANSGRESSES INTO UNLAWFUL ACTION.

THE FBI ESTIMATES THAT THE ALF/ELF HAVE COMMITTED MORE THAN

600 CRIMINAL ACTS IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1996, RESULTING IN

DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF 43 MILLION DOLLARS.

SPECIAL INTEREST TERRORISM DIFFERS FROM TRADITIONAL RIGHT–

WING AND LEFT–WING TERRORISM IN THAT EXTREMIST SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS SEEK TO RESOLVE SPECIFIC ISSUES, RATHER THAN EFFECT

WIDESPREAD POLITICAL CHANGE. SPECIAL INTEREST EXTREMISTS CONTINUE TO CONDUCT ACTS OF POLITICALLY MOTIVATED VIOLENCE TO

FORCE SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY, INCLUDING THE GENERAL PUBLIC, TO

CHANGE ATTITUDES ABOUT ISSUES CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO THEIR

CAUSES. THESE GROUPS OCCUPY THE EXTREME FRINGES OF ANIMAL

RIGHTS, PRO–LIFE, ENVIRONMENTAL, ANTI NUCLEAR, AND OTHER MOVEMENTS. SOME SPECIAL INTEREST EXTREMISTS—MOST NOTABLY WITHIN

THE ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS—HAVE

TURNED INCREASINGLY TOWARD VANDALISM AND TERRORIST ACTIVITY

IN ATTEMPTS TO FURTHER THEIR CAUSES.

SINCE 1977, WHEN DISAFFECTED MEMBERS OF THE ECOLOGICAL PRESERVATION GROUP GREENPEACE FORMED THE SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY AND ATTACKED COMMERCIAL FISHING OPERATIONS

BY CUTTING DRIFT NETS, ACTS OF ‘‘ECO–TERRORISM’’ HAVE OCCURRED

AROUND THE GLOBE. THE FBI DEFINES ECO–TERRORISM AS THE USE OR

THREATENED USE OF VIOLENCE OF A CRIMINAL NATURE AGAINST INNOCENT VICTIMS OR PROPERTY BY AN ENVIRONMENTALLY ORIENTED, SUBNATIONAL GROUP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL–POLITICAL REASONS, OR AIMED

AT AN AUDIENCE BEYOND THE TARGET, OFTEN OF A SYMBOLIC NATURE.

IN RECENT YEARS, THE ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT (ALF) HAS BECOME

ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE EXTREMIST ELEMENTS IN THE UNITED

STATES. DESPITE THE DESTRUCTIVE ASPECTS OF ALF’S OPERATIONS, ITS

OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY DISCOURAGES ACTS THAT HARM ‘‘ANY ANIMAL, HUMAN AND NONHUMAN.’’ ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS IN THE UNITED

STATES, INCLUDING THE ALF, HAVE GENERALLY ADHERED TO THIS MANDATE. THE ALF, ESTABLISHED IN GREAT BRITAIN IN THE MID–1970s, IS A

LOOSELY ORGANIZED MOVEMENT COMMITTED TO ENDING THE ABUSE

AND EXPLOITATION OF ANIMALS. THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF THE ALF

BEGAN ITS OPERATIONS IN THE LATE 1970s. INDIVIDUALS BECOME MEMBERS OF THE ALF NOT BY FILING PAPERWORK OR PAYING DUES, BUT

SIMPLY BY ENGAGING IN ‘‘DIRECT ACTION’’ AGAINST COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO UTILIZE ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH OR ECONOMIC GAIN.

‘‘DIRECT ACTION’’ GENERALLY OCCURS IN THE FORM OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO CAUSE ECONOMIC LOSS OR TO DESTROY THE VICTIMS’ COMPANY OPERATIONS. THE ALF ACTIVISTS HAVE ENGAGED IN A STEADILY

GROWING CAMPAIGN OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AGAINST FUR COMPANIES,

MINK FARMS, RESTAURANTS, AND ANIMAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES.

ESTIMATES OF DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES

CLAIMED BY THE ALF DURING THE PAST TEN YEARS, AS COMPILED BY

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE FUR COMMISSION AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH (NABR), PUT THE FUR

INDUSTRY AND MEDICAL RESEARCH LOSSES AT MORE THAN 45 MILLION

DOLLARS. THE ALF IS CONSIDERED A TERRORIST GROUP, WHOSE PURVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
51

POSE IS TO BRING ABOUT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHANGE THROUGH

THE USE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE.

DISAFFECTED ENVIRONMENTALISTS, IN 1980, FORMED A RADICAL

GROUP CALLED ‘‘EARTH FIRST!’’ AND ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF PROTESTS

AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE EVENTS. IN 1984, HOWEVER, MEMBERS INTRODUCED ‘‘TREE SPIKING’’ (INSERTION OF METAL OR CERAMIC SPIKES IN

TREES IN AN EFFORT TO DAMAGE SAWS) AS A TACTIC TO THWART LOGGING. IN 1992, THE ELF WAS FOUNDED IN BRIGHTON, ENGLAND BY

EARTH FIRST! MEMBERS WHO REFUSED TO ABANDON CRIMINAL ACTS AS

A TACTIC WHEN OTHERS WISHED TO MAINSTREAM EARTH FIRST!. IN

1993, THE ELF WAS LISTED FOR THE FIRST TIME ALONG WITH THE ALF

IN A COMMUNIQUE DECLARING SOLIDARITY IN ACTIONS BETWEEN THE

TWO GROUPS. THIS UNITY CONTINUES TODAY WITH A CROSSOVER OF

LEADERSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR THE ALF

AND THE ELF TO POST JOINT DECLARATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR

CRIMINAL ACTIONS ON THEIR WEB–SITES. IN 1994, FOUNDERS OF THE

SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OF EARTH FIRST! PUBLISHED IN THE EARTH

FIRST! JOURNAL A RECOMMENDATION THAT EARTH FIRST! MAINSTREAM

ITSELF IN THE UNITED STATES, LEAVING CRIMINAL ACTS OTHER THAN

UNLAWFUL PROTESTS TO THE ELF.

THE ELF ADVOCATES ‘‘MONKEYWRENCHING,’’ A EUPHEMISM FOR ACTS

OF SABOTAGE AND PROPERTY DESTRUCTION AGAINST INDUSTRIES AND

OTHER ENTITIES PERCEIVED TO BE DAMAGING TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. ‘‘MONKEYWRENCHING’’ INCLUDES TREE SPIKING, ARSON, SABOTAGE OF LOGGING OR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER TYPES

OF PROPERTY DESTRUCTION. SPEECHES GIVEN BY JONATHAN PAUL AND

CRAIG ROSEBRAUGH AT THE 1998 NATIONAL ANIMAL RIGHTS CONFERENCE HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, PROMOTED THE UNITY

OF BOTH THE ELF AND THE ALF MOVEMENTS. THE ELF POSTED INFORMATION ON THE ALF WEBSITE UNTIL IT BEGAN ITS OWN WEBSITE IN

JANUARY 2001, AND IS LISTED IN THE SAME UNDERGROUND ACTIVIST

PUBLICATIONS AS THE ALF.

THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE PRACTICE OF THE ALF/ELF IS ARSON. THE

ALF/ELF MEMBERS CONSISTENTLY USE IMPROVISED INCENDIARY DEVICES EQUIPPED WITH CRUDE BUT EFFECTIVE TIMING MECHANISMS.

THESE INCENDIARY DEVICES ARE OFTEN CONSTRUCTED BASED UPON

INSTRUCTIONS FOUND ON THE ALF/ELF WEBSITES. THE ALF/ELF CRIMINAL INCIDENTS OFTEN INVOLVE PRE–ACTIVITY SURVEILLANCE AND

WELL–PLANNED OPERATIONS. MEMBERS ARE BELIEVED TO ENGAGE IN

SIGNIFICANT INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AGAINST POTENTIAL TARGETS,

INCLUDING THE REVIEW OF INDUSTRY/TRADE PUBLICATIONS, PHOTOGRAPHIC/VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF POTENTIAL TARGETS, AND POSTING

DETAILS ABOUT POTENTIAL TARGETS ON THE INTERNET.

THE ALF AND THE ELF HAVE JOINTLY CLAIMED CREDIT FOR SEVERAL

RAIDS INCLUDING A NOVEMBER 1997 ATTACK OF THE BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT WILD HORSE CORRALS NEAR BURNS, OREGON WHERE

ARSON DESTROYED THE ENTIRE COMPLEX RESULTING IN DAMAGES IN

EXCESS OF FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THE

JUNE 1998 ARSON ATTACK OF A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL BUILDING NEAR OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON, IN

WHICH DAMAGES EXCEEDED TWO MILLION DOLLARS. THE ELF CLAIMED

SOLE CREDIT FOR THE OCTOBER 1998, ARSON OF A VAIL, COLORADO, SKI

FACILITY IN WHICH FOUR SKI LIFTS, A RESTAURANT, A PICNIC FACILITY

AND A UTILITY BUILDING WERE DESTROYED. DAMAGE EXCEEDED

TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS. ON 12/27/1998, THE ELF CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ARSON AT THE U.S. FOREST INDUSTRIES OFFICE IN MEDFORD, OREGON, WHERE DAMAGES EXCEEDED FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND

DOLLARS. OTHER ARSONS IN OREGON, NEW YORK, WASHINGTON, MICHIGAN AND INDIANA HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ELF. RECENTLY, THE

ELF HAS ALSO CLAIMED ATTACKS ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS

AND TREES. THE ELF CLAIMS THESE ATTACKS HAVE TOTALED CLOSE TO

$40 MILLION IN DAMAGES.

THE NAME OF A GROUP CALLED THE COALITION TO SAVE THE PRESERVES (CSP), SURFACED IN RELATION TO A SERIES OF ARSONS THAT OCCURRED IN THE PHOENIX, ARIZONA AREA. THESE ARSONS TARGETED

SEVERAL NEW HOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION NEAR THE NORTH PHOENIX MOUNTAIN PRESERVES. NO DIRECT CONNECTION WAS ESTABLISHED

BETWEEN THE CSP AND ALF/ELF. HOWEVER, THE STATED GOAL OF CSP

52

TO STOP DEVELOPMENT OF PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED LANDS, IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ELF. THE PROPERTY DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH

THE ARSONS HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5 MILLION.

THE FBI HAS DEVELOPED A STRONG RESPONSE TO THE THREATS

POSED BY DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS 1993 AND 2003, THE NUMBER OF SPECIAL AGENTS DEDICATED

TO THE FBI’S COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRAMS GREW BY APPROXIMATELY 224 PERCENT (TO 1,669—NEARLY 16 PERCENT OF ALL FBI SPECIAL AGENTS). IN RECENT YEARS, THE FBI HAS STRENGTHENED ITS

COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRAM TO ENHANCE ITS ABILITIES TO CARRY

OUT THESE OBJECTIVES.

COOPERATION AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AT ALL LEVELS

REPRESENTS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO TERRORISM. THIS COOPERATION ASSUMES ITS MOST TANGIBLE OPERATIONAL FORM IN THE JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCES

(JTTFS) THAT ARE ESTABLISHED IN 44 CITIES ACROSS THE NATION.

THESE TASK FORCES ARE PARTICULARLY WELL–SUITED TO RESPONDING

TO TERRORISM BECAUSE THEY COMBINE THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES OF THE FBI WITH THE STREET– LEVEL EXPERTISE OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. GIVEN THE

SUCCESS OF THE JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE (JTTF) CONCEPT, THE

FBI HAS ESTABLISHED 15 NEW JTTFS SINCE THE END OF 1999. BY THE

END OF 2003 THE FBI PLANS TO HAVE ESTABLISHED JTTFS IN EACH OF

ITS 56 FIELD OFFICES. BY INTEGRATING THE INVESTIGATIVE ABILITIES

OF THE FBI AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, THESE TASK

FORCES REPRESENT AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO THE THREATS POSED

TO U.S. COMMUNITIES BY DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.

THE FBI AND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF ARRESTS OF INDIVIDUALS ALLEGED TO HAVE PERPETRATED

ACTS OF ECO–TERRORISM. SEVERAL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN

SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED. FOLLOWING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE

PHOENIX, ARIZONA ARSONS NOTED EARLIER, MARK WARREN SANDS WAS

INDICTED AND ARRESTED ON 6/14/2001. ON 11/07/2001, SANDS PLEADED

GUILTY TO TEN COUNTS OF EXTORTION AND USING FIRE IN THE COMMISSION OF A FEDERAL FELONY.

IN FEBRUARY 2001, TEENAGERS JARED MCINTYRE, MATTHEW

RAMMELKAMP, AND GEORGE MASHKOW ALL PLEADED GUILTY, AS

ADULTS, TO TITLE 18 U.S.C. 844(I), ARSON, AND 844(N), ARSON CONSPIRACY. THESE CHARGES PERTAIN TO A SERIES OF ARSONS AND ATTEMPTED ARSONS OF NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION SITES IN LONG ISLAND, NY. AN ADULT, CONNOR CASH, WAS ALSO ARRESTED ON FEBRUARY 15, 2001, AND CHARGED UNDER THE SAME FEDERAL STATUTES.

JARED MCINTRYE STATED THAT THESE ACTS WERE COMMITTED IN SYMPATHY OF THE ELF MOVEMENT. THE NEW YORK JOINT TERRORISM TASK

FORCE PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE ARREST AND PROSECUTION

OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.

ON 1/23/2001, FRANK AMBROSE WAS ARRESTED BY OFFICERS OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THE INDIANAPOLIS JTTF, ON A LOCAL WARRANT OUT OF MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, CHARGING AMBROSE WITH TIMBER SPIKING. AMBROSE IS SUSPECTED OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE SPIKING OF APPROXIMATELY 150 TREES IN INDIANA STATE FORESTS. THE ELF

CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE INCIDENTS.

ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1998, A FEDERAL GRAND JURY IN THE WESTERN

DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN INDICTED PETER YOUNG AND JUSTIN SAMUEL

FOR HOBBS ACT VIOLATIONS AS WELL AS FOR ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM. SAMUEL WAS APPREHENDED IN BELGIUM, AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXTRADITED TO THE UNITED STATES. ON AUGUST 30, 2000,

SAMUEL PLEADED GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS OF ANIMAL ENTERPRISE

TERRORISM AND WAS SENTENCED ON NOVEMBER 3, 2000, TO TWO YEARS

IN PRISON, TWO YEARS PROBATION, AND ORDERED TO PAY $364,106 IN

RESTITUTION. SAMUEL’S PROSECUTION AROSE OUT OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN MINK RELEASES IN WISCONSIN IN 1997. THIS INCIDENT WAS

CLAIMED BY THE ALF. THE INVESTIGATION AND ARREST OF JUSTIN SAMUEL WERE THE RESULT OF A JOINT EFFORT BY FEDERAL, STATE AND

LOCAL AGENCIES.

ON APRIL 20, 1997, DOUGLAS JOSHUA ELLERMAN TURNED HIMSELF IN

AND ADMITTED ON VIDEOTAPE TO PURCHASING, CONSTRUCTING, AND

53

TRANSPORTING FIVE PIPE BOMBS TO THE SCENE OF THE MARCH 11, 1997

ARSON AT THE FUR BREEDERS AGRICULTURAL CO–OP IN SANDY, UTAH.

ELLERMAN ALSO ADMITTED SETTING FIRE TO THE FACILITY. ELLERMAN

WAS INDICTED ON JUNE 19, 1997 ON 16 COUNTS, AND EVENTUALLY

PLEADED GUILTY TO THREE. HE WAS SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN

PRISON AND RESTITUTION OF APPROXIMATELY $750,000. THOUGH THIS

INCIDENT WAS NOT OFFICIALLY CLAIMED BY ALF, ELLERMAN INDICATED

DURING AN INTERVIEW SUBSEQUENT TO HIS ARREST THAT HE WAS A

MEMBER OF ALF. THIS INCIDENT WAS INVESTIGATED JOINTLY BY THE

FBI AND THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS (BATF).

RODNEY ADAM CORONADO WAS CONVICTED FOR HIS ROLE IN THE FEBRUARY 2, 1992, ARSON AT AN ANIMAL RESEARCH LABORATORY ON THE

CAMPUS OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. DAMAGE ESTIMATES, ACCORDING TO PUBLIC SOURCES, APPROACHED $200,000 AND INCLUDED

THE DESTRUCTION OF RESEARCH RECORDS. ON JULY 3, 1995, CORONADO

PLED GUILTY FOR HIS ROLE IN THE ARSON AND WAS SENTENCED TO 57

MONTHS IN FEDERAL PRISON, THREE YEARS PROBATION, AND RESTITUTION OF MORE THAN $2 MILLION. THIS INCIDENT WAS CLAIMED BY ALF.

THE FBI, BATF AND THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE PLAYED

A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION, ARREST, AND PROSECUTION.

MARC LESLIE DAVIS, MARGARET KATHERINE MILLET, MARC ANDRE

BAKER, AND ILSE WASHINGTON ASPLUND WERE ALL MEMBERS OF THE

SELF–PROCLAIMED ‘‘EVAN MECHAM ECO–TERRORIST INTERNATIONAL

CONSPIRACY’’ (EMETIC). EMETIC WAS FORMED TO ENGAGE IN ECO–TERRORISM AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND SKI RESORTS IN THE

SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES. IN NOVEMBER 1987, THE GROUP

CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A CHAIRLIFT AT THE FAIRFIELD SNOW BOWL SKI RESORT NEAR FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA. DAVIS, MILLET, AND BAKER WERE ARRESTED IN MAY 1989 ON CHARGES RELATING

TO THE FAIRFIELD SNOW BOWL INCIDENT AND PLANNED INCIDENTS AT

THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT AND PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS IN ARIZONA; THE DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR FACILITY

IN CALIFORNIA; AND THE ROCKY FLATS NUCLEAR FACILITY IN COLORADO. ALL PLEADED GUILTY AND WERE SENTENCED IN SEPTEMBER 1991.

DAVIS WAS SENTENCED TO SIX YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON, AND RESTITUTION TO THE FAIRFIELD SNOW BOWL SKI RESORT IN THE AMOUNT

OF $19,821. MILLET WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON, AND RESTITUTION TO FAIRFIELD IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,821. BAKER

WAS SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR IN FEDERAL PRISON, FIVE MONTHS PROBATION, A $5,000 FINE, AND 100 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE.

ASPLUND WAS ALSO CHARGED AND WAS SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR IN

FEDERAL PRISON, FIVE YEARS PROBATION, A $2,000 FINE, AND 100 HOURS

OF COMMUNITY SERVICE.

CURRENTLY, MORE THAN 26 FBI FIELD OFFICES HAVE PENDING INVESTIGATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ALF/ELF ACTIVITIES. DESPITE ALL OF OUR

EFFORTS (INCREASED RESOURCES ALLOCATED, JTTFS, SUCCESSFUL ARRESTS AND PROSECUTIONS), LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS A LONG WAY TO

GO TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF ECO–TERRORISM.

GROUPS SUCH AS THE ALF AND THE ELF PRESENT UNIQUE CHALLENGES. THERE IS LITTLE IF ANY HIERARCHAL STRUCTURE TO SUCH ENTITIES. ECO–TERRORISTS ARE UNLIKE TRADITIONAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES WHICH ARE OFTEN STRUCTURED AND ORGANIZED.

THE DIFFICULTY INVESTIGATING SUCH GROUPS IS DEMONSTRATED BY

THE FACT THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS THUS FAR BEEN UNABLE TO

EFFECT THE ARRESTS OF ANYONE FOR SOME RECENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DIRECTED AT FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS OR THEIR OFFICES. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SEVERAL ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS REGARDING

SUCH ACTS. CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDE THE 10/14/2001 ARSON

AT THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WILD HORSE AND BURRO CORRAL IN LITCHFIELD, CALIFORNIA, THE 7/20/2000 DESTRUCTION OF TREES

AND DAMAGE TO VEHICLES AT THE U.S. FORESTRY SCIENCE LABORATORY IN RHINELANDER, WISCONSIN, AND THE 11/29/1997 ARSON AT THE

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CORRAL IN BURNS, OREGON.

BEFORE CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE RENDERED BY THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE IN INVESTIGATING INCIDENTS OF ECO–TERRORISM. SPECIFICALLY, I WOULD

LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE ASSISTANCE THAT THE FOREST SERVICE IS

54

PROVIDING WITH REGARD TO THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION OF THE 7/20/

2000 INCIDENT OF VANDALISM AND DESTRUCTION THAT OCCURRED AT

THE U.S. FORESTRY SCIENCE LABORATORY IN RHINELANDER, WISCONSIN.

THE FBI AND ALL OF OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS WILL CONTINUE TO STRIVE TO ADDRESS THE DIFFICULT AND UNIQUE CHALLENGES POSED BY ECO–TERRORISTS. DESPITE

THE RECENT FOCUS ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, WE REMAIN FULLY

COGNIZANT OF THE FULL RANGE OF THREATS THAT CONFRONT THE

UNITED STATES.

CHAIRMAN MCINNIS AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THIS

CONCLUDES MY PREPARED REMARKS. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION FOR YOUR CONCENTRATION ON THE ISSUE OF ECO–TERRORISM

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO RESPONDING TO ANY QUESTIONS.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wharton, we will turn to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF PORTER WHARTON III, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, VAIL RESORTS, INC.

Mr. WHARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the morning of October 19th, 1998, at approximately 3:30

a.m. the first of eight fires were set. At 4 a.m. the first alarms

came into Vail dispatch, and by 4:20 a.m. the first firefighters were

on their way up the dirt road to the 11,200 foot ridgeline where the

fires raged at two locations a mile and a half apart.

By 4:40 a.m. the first firefighters were on the scene. What they

were confronted with was five buildings, three ski lifts engulfed in

flames. Hampered by a lack of water on the ridgeline, six inches

of fresh snow, and fires that by the time had almost an hour’s head

start, their task was virtually impossible.

Eventually 195 firefighters from 11 fire departments and our

company were engaged throughout the night and into the day.

They came for six counties and stayed for over 8 hours engaged in

the battle.

When the morning sun rose over the Gore Range it illuminated

a shocking amount of damage. Foremost was the complete loss of

the resort’s flagship on-mountain restaurant, Two Elk, a 24,000

square foot majestic log structure with seating for over 500 people.

Four additional buildings housing dining and ski patrol functions

were also totally consumed. Three chairlifts were damaged. The

total value of lost assets was over $12 million, making this the

most costly act of eco-terrorism in this country’s history.

Most fortunately, only one of the almost 200 firefighters involved

was injured. And a hunter, who had left his friends at their nearby

campsite to sleep in a small restroom for building for warmth,

awoke to find himself in the only structure not engulfed in flames.

As one witness to the carnage said later, ‘‘The only thing we can

be thankful for is that we aren’t having services.’’

Former Governor Roy Romer was the first to call the fires an act

of terrorism.

Then on Wednesday, October 21st, 2 days after the fires, an email was received by Colorado Public Radio. The e-mail, purportedly sent by ELF, the Earth Liberation Front, claimed responsibility for the fires.

55

Why had Vail drawn the attention of ELF? Three days before the

fires a Federal Court had given final approval for the construction

of the Category III expansion of the ski area. The expansion had

been controversial, with some environmentalists opposing it for

reasons including possible impacts to Canadian lynx habitat, even

though no lynx had been seen in the area since 1973.

The expansion had been contemplated since the resort’s founding

in 1962. It was desired by our guests, supported by an overwhelming majority of our community. The approval process took

over 7 years and $5 million in expenditures by our company. It was

the most scrutinized ski area expansion in history, with over 65

studies conducted on soil, air, wildlife, water and other issues. Two

administrative reviews, three court challenges, all supported the

expansion. It was approved by four Federal agencies, one State

agency and two local governments.

But ELF did not accept the results of this exhaustive process.

The ELF communique ́ stated the fires had been set, quote, ‘‘...on

behalf of the lynx.’’ And then our guests were warned, quote, ‘‘For

your safety and convenience, we strongly advise skiers to choose

other destinations.’’

The property damage has now been repaired, but the scars on

our community and our company remain. A former Vail mayor said

at the time, quote: ‘‘This was not only an attack against Vail Resorts, this was an attack against the people who live and work in

Eagle County,’’ end quote. It is the wealthy visitors to Vail that are

a part of our image, but when the guests are gone, there are 30,000

hardworking very normal people that remain in the valley they call

home. Those are the people that ELF terrorized. The sense of violation and the feelings of outrage remain today.

The investigation is still open. No arrests have been made.

ELF boasts it is above the laws of this country and claimed they

were, quote, ‘‘...effecting social change.’’ And that, quote,

‘‘...decreasing profits by destroying property has been very effective,’’ end quote. But let’s call it what it really is. No matter what

the supposed justification, this was terrorism. This is a fringe

group, saying in essence that they are more important than the

laws that are the foundation of this society and this country.

Any effort on the part of this administration and this Congress

to assure homeland security must include a response to domestic

environmental terrorism. These faceless, cowardly criminals must

be stopped. If they are not, more property will be destroyed. More

threats of extortion and worse will be issued. More law-abiding citizens will live in fear, and eventually, inevitably, there will be loss

of life. It’s a miracle it hasn’t happened already.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wharton follows:]

Statement of Porter Wharton, III, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs,

Vail Resorts, Inc.

On the morning of October 19, 1998, at approximately 3:30 a.m., the first of eight

fires were set. At 4:00 a.m., the first alarms came into Vail dispatch and by 4:20

a.m., the first firefighters were on their way up the dirt road to the 11,200 foot

ridgeline where the fires raged at two locations a mile and a half apart.

By 4:40 a.m., the first firefighters were on the scene. What they were confronted

with was five buildings and three ski lifts engulfed in flames. Hampered by a lack

56

of water on the ridgeline, six inches of fresh snow and fires that by that time had

almost an hour’s head start, their task was virtually impossible.

Eventually 195 firefighters from 11 fire departments and our company were engaged throughout the night and into the day. They came from six counties and

stayed for over eight hours engaged in the battle.

When the morning sun rose over the Gore Range, it illuminated a shocking

amount of damage. Foremost was the complete loss of the resort’s flagship on-mountain restaurant, Two Elk. A 24, 000 square foot majestic log structure, with seating

for 550.

Four additional buildings housing dining and ski patrol functions were also totally

consumed. Three chairlifts were damaged. The total value of lost assets was over

$12 Million, making this the most costly act of eco-terrorism in this country’s history.

Most fortunately, only one of the almost 200 firefighters involved was injured.

And a hunter who had left his friends at their nearby campsite to sleep in a small

restroom building for warmth awoke to find himself in the only structure not engulfed in flames. As one witness to the carnage said later, ‘‘The only thing we can

be thankful for is that we aren’t having services.’’

Former Colorado Governor Romer was the first to call the fires an act of

terrorism. Then, on Wednesday October 21st, two days after the fires, an e-mail was

received by Colorado Public Radio

The e-mail, purportedly sent by ELF, the Earth Liberation Front, an eco-terrorist

group responsible for tens of millions of dollars of destruction across Europe and the

United States, claimed responsibility for the fires.

Why had Vail drawn the attention of ELF? Three days before the fires, a federal

court had given final approval for the construction of the Category III expansion of

the ski area. The expansion had been controversial, with some environmentalists opposing it for reasons including possible impacts to Canadian Lynx habitat—even

though no lynx had been seen in the area since 1973.

The expansion had been contemplated since the resort’s founding in 1962. It was

desired by our guests and supported by an overwhelming majority of our community. The approval process took over seven years and five million dollars in expenditures by our company. It was the most scrutinized ski area expansion in history

with over 65 studies conducted on soil, air, wildlife and water issues. Two administrative reviews and three court challenges all supported the expansion. It was approved by four federal agencies, one state agency and two local governments.

But ELF did not accept the results of this exhaustive process. The ELF

communique ́ stated the fires had been set, ‘‘’’ on behalf of the lynx. Putting profits

ahead of Colorado’s wildlife will not be tolerated. This action is just a warning.’’ And

then our guests were warned, ‘‘For your safety and convenience, we strongly advise

skiers to choose other destinations.’’

The property damage has now been repaired. But the scars on our community and

our company remain. A former Vail mayor said at the time, ‘‘This was not only an

attack against Vail Resorts, this was an attack against the people who live and

work in Eagle County.’’ It is the wealthy visitors to Vail that are a part of it’s

image, but when the guests are gone, there are 30,000 hard-working very normal

people that remain in the valley they call home. Those are the people ELF terrorized. The sense of violation and the feelings of outrage remain.

The investigation is still open. No arrests have been made

ELF boasts it is above the laws of this country and claimed they were, ‘‘’’ effecting

social change.’’ And that, ‘‘’’ decreasing profits by destroying property has been very

effective.’’ But let’s call it what it really is. No matter what the supposed justification, this was terrorism. This is a fringe group saying in essence that they are more

important than the laws that are the foundation of this society and this country.

Any effort on the part of this administration and this Congress to assure homeland

security must include a response to domestic environmental terrorism. These faceless, cowardly criminals must be stopped.

If they are not, more property will be destroyed. More threats of extortion and

worse will be issued. More law-abiding citizens will live in fear. And eventually, inevitably there will be a loss of life. It’s a miracle it hasn’t happened already.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Wharton.

Mr. Hicks?

57

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. HICKS, NORTHWEST OREGON

AREA LOGGING MANAGER, BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION

Mr. HICKS. I’m Michael S. Hicks— Mr. HANSEN. [Presiding] Would you get a mike over by there,

Mr. Hicks, if you would, please? Thank you.

Mr. HICKS. I’m the Northwest Oregon Area Logging Manager for

Boise Cascade Corporation. We own or manage over 2.3 million

acres of forest land, using science-based state-of-the-art practices.

We are a major distributor of office products and building products,

and we also manufacture building products and paper products to

meet the demands of the American public. Over 19,000 people work

for Boise Cascade in the United States.

My office is in Monmouth, Oregon. I manage 160,000 acres of

timberland, and our field office is home to 25 to 30 professional

foresters, engineers, biologists and support staff.

Thank you for allowing me to provide my testimony on domestic

terrorism. The title of the hearing is ‘‘Eco-terrorism and Lawlessness in the National Forests.’’ However, from my perspective, we

are dealing with just plain terrorism and lawlessness. There is no

prefix such as ‘‘eco’’ that anyone can put before the word ‘‘terrorism’’ that justifies a cause. Terrorism is terrorism, plain and

simple.

It does have an impact on how we approach our business, especially when it comes to Federal timber sales. I would like to explain

the basis for that concern.

I am here today to relate my experience with domestic terrorism

that was carried out against our company on Christmas Day 1999.

Our office was burned to the ground by an arson fire. The evil and

the cowardly elves of the Earth Liberation Front, ELF, had brought

their gift of terror to our lives. ELF, through their spokesman at

the time, Craig Rosebraugh, claimed the responsibility for the fire.

The claim was verified by ATF and FBI investigators.

It was reported on December 31st, 1999 by the ‘‘Oregonian’’ newspaper that Craig Rosebraugh himself was, quote, ‘‘Pleased

with the arson,’’ end quote. Incendiary devices placed on opposite

sides of the building by the arsonists had ignited the fire. It was

clear that ELF had sized up our facility and had known the office

to burn easily once ignited.

The firefighters, many of whom were volunteers, had to separate

an outside wall from the building to extinguish the fire. It was difficult and dangerous work. They were trying to pull down a wall

while preventing the firemen from getting trapped by the falling

wall. We gained renewed appreciation for the dedication and the

bravery of our firefighters on that chilly Christmas morning.

After the fire was out, one of the first things I salvaged from the

office was a display case with an American flag from the office of

one of our foresters, who was also a Gulf War veteran and active

in the Marine Reserves. This was a flag that had draped his father’s coffin, and I know how important it was to him and to the

rest of us.

There was many hazards associated with salvaging what personal items and office files and equipment we could. We had to contend with broken glass, floors that gave way, and ceilings that had

fallen down and were resting on file cabinets.

58

This was not an attack on a corporate entity. This was an attack

on all the individuals of our office. We all lost personal items that

are important to our professional lives. We lost photographs, collectibles, art work and professional certificates.

As far as the company was concerned, the attack did not alter

our business strategy. It did change how we view security. We take

security much more seriously now. Our new office contains stateof-the-art security. We all became more keenly aware of the security risks we have on our lands, at our mills, and around our equipment.

As a result of the arson fire, the company chose to rebuild using

materials such as concrete, steel and aluminum, which are nonflammable and nonrenewable energy consuming. Ironically, when

the effects of the air pollution from the fire, added to the use of energy-consuming nonrenewable building products, the effects on the

ecosystem are increased.

The 1999 was not the company’s first experience with lawless behavior by radical activists, but a few terrorists will not stop our efforts to be good stewards of the land, or stop us from providing

quality products that the public demands. The domestic terrorists

have only strengthened our resolve. After an event like an arson

fire, we look at life differently, but we must continue managing our

forest lands. After all, they aren’t going anywhere.

We also manage our Federal, state and private timber sales differently. We have seen the results of lawless activities in the national forests firsthand. We recognize that we are at an increased

risk of being a target.

In summary, ELF burned our office building. They admit it. ELF

is a terrorist organization willing to break the laws that we all live

and work by. The terrorists did have an impact on how we view

the world from a security perspective. They also cost the company

a million and a half dollars to replace our office building. But the

primary impact of burning our office was on the personal lives of

our staff.

In addition, the arson also placed my staff, the firefighters and

myself in harm’s way, and as it’s been said many times here today,

sooner or later someone’s going to get injured or killed.

We only hope that the cowards are caught and held accountable

for their terror and destruction they have caused. Congress should

recognize these are terrorists, and they should be sought out, prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important

and timely topic.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hicks follows:]

Statement of Michael S. Hicks, Northwest Oregon Area Logging Manager,

Boise Cascade Corporation

Mr. Chairman and committee members:

I am Michael S. Hicks, Northwest Oregon Area Logging Manager for Boise Cascade Corporation. Boise Cascade owns or controls over 2.3 million acres of forest

land using science based, state-of-the-art forestry practices. In addition to being a

major distributor of office products and building products, Boise Cascade also manufactures building products and paper products to meet the demands of the American

public. Over 19,000 people work for Boise Cascade in the United States.

My area in Monmouth, Oregon is part of the Western Oregon Region with the regional office located in Medford Oregon. In my position as Logging Manager, I am

59

responsible for obtaining a reliable source of log supply for our three Northwest

Oregon veneer mills. The logs are obtained from our own lands, from contracts sold

by a number of government and private sellers, and from open market log deliveries. My responsibilities also include the management of 160,000 acres of

timberland and management of a staff of 25 to 30 professional foresters and biologists. Our office is a field office, primarily housing field foresters, engineers, field

biologists, and administrative support staff.

Thank you for allowing me to provide my testimony on domestic terrorism. The

title of this hearing is Ecoterrorism and Lawlessness on National Forests. However,

from my perspective, we are dealing with just plain TERRORISM AND LAWLESSNESS. It really does not matter what the cause is, or how one’s actions are justified.

There is no prefix anyone can put before the word terrorism that justifies a cause.

We are a nation of laws and due process. Terrorism is terrorism, plain and simple.

I am here today to relate my experience with domestic terrorism, as I call the activities that were carried out against our company. It was Christmas morning, 1999

and this was to be the first time my wife and I would enjoy the chance to sleep

in on Christmas morning since the 1970’s. However, the phone rang at about 5:15

A.M. It was our local Boise Cascade Employee Relations Manager telling me our office was on fire.

Needless to say, my string of early awakenings on Christmas morning remained

intact. This time, however, it wasn’t because of kids or grandkids running around

to see what Santa and his elves had brought. As we found out a few days later,

it was elves of a different stripe. The evil and cowardly elves of the Earth Liberation

Front (ELF) had brought their gift of terror to our lives. ELF, through their spokesperson at the time, Craig Rosebraugh, claimed responsibility for the fire. Their

claim was verified by ATF and FBI investigators.

That Christmas morning was cold and dry, made even colder by a stiff wind from

the north. ELF could not have had better conditions to start a fire. When I arrived

about 25 minutes after receiving the call, the fire had been burning for over an

hour. The roof had caved in and the firefighters were busy trying to put out several

hot spots. Incendiary devices placed on opposite sides of the building by the

arsonists, presumably for maximum effect, had ignited the arson fire. Our office was

primarily wood construction with many interior walls lined with cedar. The office

was built in 1978 and the construction was meant to display the wood products industry. The alcoves in the front and rear provided corners for maximum ignition

heat and the vents above the ignition point allowed the fumes and flames to carry

throughout the dry, wood framed attic. It was clear that ELF had sized up our

facility and had known their standard fire setting practices would cause the office

to burn easily, once ignited.

There were at least three alarms called during the fire, with many firefighters

working several sides of the 7500 square foot structure. After a quick look, I called

my boss to give him an update and then started to call all my staff. One by one,

the staff—and in many cases their families—came in during the morning, interrupting their holiday festivities. We all stared in disbelief and wandered around as

close as the firefighters dared to let us. The fire departments were concerned about

our safety as we instinctively moved closer and closer, driven by the need to save

what we could. Throughout the early morning we comforted each other and tried

to comprehend what was happening. At the time, we did not know it was an arson

fire. As we gazed at the smoldering rubble, we all wondered what we could have

done to prevent it.

The fire department kept us from entering the perimeter, but I was able to engage

a fireman on the periphery about how things were going and when they thought

it would be contained and finally extinguished. As I was discussing the situation

with the firefighter, I noticed one area containing all our easements, lease documents, real estate papers, rights-of-way files and other important files. It was not

heavily damaged by the fire, but was getting a lot of water going in and around

it. I asked the fireman if there was any way we could get a tarp over the file cabinets to protect them from water damage. We broke out the remaining glass of the

window and crawled in to the office and draped a tarp over the cabinet. We were

very fortunate that the fire originated well away from this area. With the exception

of a little water in the file cabinets, these files were saved from fire or water damage. I wish we could have done the same for many others.

Several hot spots were particularly difficult to extinguish. The firefighters, many

of them volunteers, had to separate the outside wall from the building to extinguish

the fire. It was difficult and dangerous work. They were trying to pull the wall down

while preventing the firemen from getting trapped by the falling wall. They pulled

an exterior wall down in at least two locations. After seeing all the dangers up close,

I remember thinking that morning about all the hazards the firemen endured. We

60

gained a renewed appreciation for the dedication and bravery of our firefighters on

that chilly Christmas morning.

By late morning the fire was declared out. The fire marshal indicated he wanted

us to stay away from an area he thought might have been the source of the fire,

the copy machine room. With the caution to stay clear of this area, we were allowed

to enter and retrieve what we could salvage. Because safety is one of our company’s core values, we held a safety meeting before we embarked on the salvage project.

One of the first things I brought out was a display case with a folded American flag

from the office of Sergeant Major Rudy Frazzini, one of our foresters, who is also

a Gulf War veteran and active in the Marine Reserves. This was the flag that had

draped his father’s coffin, and I knew how important this was to Rudy and the rest

of us. I made sure it was safe in the seat of my pickup.

Many of the staff had to postpone their Christmas activities to spend the day salvaging all the items they could. It was especially tough on four of my grandchildren

because we were due to open presents with them at 10:00 A.M. in the morning and

they had to wait until I arrived that evening. The fire was on a Saturday and we

were expecting rain by the following Monday. We knew we had to get everything

under cover by then. We worked all day Saturday and came back on Sunday to

move as much as we could to our mill site. Our goal was to salvage the files and

what we could for our temporary quarters. I recall pulling out file drawers that were

still smoldering and attempting to extinguish the embers so that we could salvage

the files. We filled a large room (approximately 2000 square feet) in the nearby veneer mill with file drawers, computers in varying degrees of meltdown, and other

office equipment that we thought we could salvage. There were many hazards associated with salvaging all the usable remains of a fire. We had to contend with broken glass, floors that gave way, and overhead ceilings that had caved in and were

resting on file cabinets. We contended with the ever-present tangle of wires, debris

and remnants of the ceiling and roof trusses. The conditions were difficult for salvaging, but we worked cautiously and had a good share of the salvageable material

removed by Sunday evening.

On Monday our access to the office and its contents was cut off completely by investigators from the FBI and ATF, as well as the Oregon State Police. Not only

could we not get close to the rubble, we could not even talk to any of the investigators. The Federal folks were quite focused and extremely professional in their investigation. The evidence gathered and the fine work by the Federal agencies eventually led to confirmation that ELF did, in fact, start the fire. As noted earlier, ELF,

through their spokesman, Craig Rosebraugh, claimed responsibility for the fire, and

their claim was independently confirmed by Federal investigators.

When you think about losing your home to fire, what is the first thing you wish

you could save, assuming all the family members and pets are out? In my house,

my first concern would be the irreplaceable art work, family heirlooms, and of

course, all the photos and slides of family and friends. Our offices are very much

like our homes. Many of us spend as much time in our office as we do our home.

We have collectibles, art and other individual items that reflect ourselves. The very

personal nature of our offices being destroyed by a cowardly arson attack has as

much of an emotional impact as losing one’s home. That may sound too strong, but

the point is we all lost personal items that were important to our professional lives

that make us balanced and productive contributors to our society.

In my case, I lost a whole file drawer of photographs and slides taken over a 25-

year career. These pictures were a great treasure to me and I was able to salvage

little of that precious drawer. I clearly remember welling up with tears, looking at

the fused mass of pictures and shriveled slides, thinking that this history of my

work life, much like a daily journal, is gone. I had intended to use these pictures

to write my professional history when I retired. I just do not think about it any

more because I get depressed. In addition, I was very proud of my contributions to

various boards and organizations. The certificates recognizing those contributions

were hanging on my wall, as I am sure they do in many of your offices. They were

all incinerated into a pile of ash and rubble. I did manage to salvage one thing I

treasured and brought it with me today to the hearing on Ecoterrorism and Lawlessness in National Forests. I hold a copy of the proceedings on hearings of the sale

of timber from Federal lands held in the spring of 1979. I was able to testify at a

similar Congressional hearing and was given a copy of those proceedings. It is a little worse for wear, but that was one little treasure I did get to keep.

Other colleagues have similar stories, such as one who lost the only photo he has

of his two very pregnant daughters posing tummy to tummy. Another person lost

a one-of-a-kind map of the original railroad route that accessed the heart of our

forest lands during the times when the only access was by railroad. One person lost

the picture of his father dressed in his army uniform, and a diploma with the

61

summa cum laude banner was damaged. Numerous family pictures and small mementos were lost. This was not just an attack on a corporate entity; it was an attack

on all the individuals who called our office home for 40 to 60 hours a week. Our

personal possessions were destroyed. Our lives were severely disrupted.

As far as the corporation was concerned, the attack did not alter our business

strategy. We were up and running within a week, on the first operating day in January, with all new copies of contracts, an office, phones, and all the office equipment

necessary to keep us in business. It did, however, change how we view security. We

take our security much more seriously than we did before December 25, 1999. Our

new office contains state-of-the-art security measures inside and out. We all have

a heightened sense of awareness. We lost our sense of security and became more

keenly aware of the risks we have on our lands, at our mills, and around our equipment. The timber industry is a proud and industrious segment of society. Even

though the industry has been battered on many fronts, it is still relatively strong

and viable with an incredible will to survive. A few terrorists will not stop our efforts to be good stewards of the land, or stop us from providing quality products the

public demands. The domestic terrorists have only strengthened our resolve to remain a strong, viable part of the U.S. economy.

To replace the office, we went through months of analysis, negotiations, and internal discussions before we settled on a structure that was very much the same floor

layout as before, but very different in building design. Since ELF attacked our

facility, security has become a huge factor in how we site, secure and manage our

facilities. Existing streets, access, cooperation of local government, and current zoning of adjacent properties all played into our decision to relocate in the same spot

as before. In the end, we were not going to allow terrorists to dictate where we conduct business.

The company spent approximately $1.5 million dollars replacing the office and

contents. A significant portion of that cost was expended on internal and external

security. Boise Cascade has been a target once; we felt we could once again be in

someone’s cross hairs. As a result of the arson fire, the company chose to build using

more materials such as concrete, steel, and aluminum, which are non-flammable

and non-renewable energy consuming. Ironically, when the effects of the air pollution from the fire are added to the use of energy consuming non-renewable building

products, the effects on the ecosystem are doubled. ELF impacted our lives, as well

as our office building, and now we are more cautious. Life goes on and we are continuing to harvest, plant and nurture our forests for future generations. Our mills

continue to make and distribute high quality forest products that we all use. After

such an event, we look at life differently, but we must continue managing our

forestlands. After all, they are not going anywhere.

We also manage our timber sales differently, as this 1999 arson was not our company’s first experience with lawless behavior by radical activists. For example, our

company has experienced these negative effects on our operation in southern Oregon

in the early 1990s with the Sugarloaf timber sale on the Siskiyou National Forest.

During logging operations we hired extra security and our operations were delayed.

We even had protesters force one of our contractor’s log trucks to come to a halt

so an accomplice could lock himself underneath the truck. Trees were spiked with

metal spikes. We have seen the results of lawless activities in the National Forests

firsthand. From our perspective, purchasing timber from the National Forests has

increased Boise Cascade’s risk of being targeted by organizations like ELF.

In summary, ELF burned our office building. It was reported on December 31,

1999 by the Oregonian newspaper that Craig Rosebraugh received the ELF

communique ́ and that ‘‘he was pleased with the arson.’’ ELF is a terrorist organization willing to break laws that we all live and work by. Boise Cascade lost little

time getting back to the business of growing, harvesting, planting, and nurturing

the forests in our charge. It did not change the company’s desire to meet our customer’s wood, paper and office products needs in the market place.

The terrorists did have an impact on how we view the world from a security perspective. And it also cost the company $1.5 million. The primary impact of burning

our office was on the personal lives of our staff. However, it also placed my staff,

the firefighters, and me in harm’s way, and it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed. We have biologists who frequented that office at

all hours of the night, coming or going on their rounds to survey for Spotted Owls

and Marbled Murrelets. Any one of those workers could have been present, and injured or killed by ELF’s terrorist activities.

Our personal and professional losses cannot be measured, so we are moving on.

We only hope the cowards are caught and held accountable for the terror and destruction they have caused. Congress and others should recognize that these groups

62

are terrorists and these group should be sought out and prosecuted to the full extent

of the law.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important and timely topic.

[A chart attached to Mr. Hicks’ statement follows:]

63

64

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Berman.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

THE CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you.

I’m going to abbreviate the remarks that I’ve submitted to the

Committee.

It’s not known that—it’s known to many people that on September 11th, when we had the tragedies in New York and at the

Pentagon, that a joint communique ́ was issued by ALF and ELF,

and I read from it. ‘‘Activists working in the interest of both the Animal Liberation

Frontline and the Earth Liberation Frontline torched a Tucson, Arizona McDonald’s, causing more than $500,000 in damage.’’ This release, this press release, joint press release by ALF and

ELF, as I say, was issued on the same day. Total insensitivity by

these organizations, obviously not caring what the public reaction

would be to a group announcing this kind of domestic terrorism

when we had just suffered something hours before. I think it says

something about who we’re dealing with when we start to talk

about these groups. The underground ELF and ALF like to brag

publicly about their felonies. ALF, as it has been mentioned here

before, released a report in January, claiming responsibility for 137

crimes in 2001, and causing an estimated $17.3 million in damage.

It doesn’t appear that ALF and ELF will stop with damage to

people and businesses with whom they disagree. They are aggressively new criminals to their gang. Incredibly, the groups’ leaders

have begun to distribute ‘‘how to’’ manuals on the Internet, describing how to build bombs and incendiary devices, how to destroy

fields of genetically engineered food crops, and how to commit

arson, thievery, and other felonies without leaving clues at the

crime scene. There is even a volume on the easiest ways to sink

a ship.

Any 10-year-old with a computer can download much of this

reading material. For a few dollars and the cost of postage, ALF

spokesperson, their current spokesperson, David Barbarash, will

mail the rest of the materials to anyone who asks. I have submitted a copy of Mr. Barbarash’s disturbing catalog for the record.

Equally troubling is the extent to which some eco-terrorists and

animal rights criminals have managed to garner support both philosophical and financial from aboveground activist organizations, including those that enjoy the same tax benefits as our Nation’s religious organizations and universities.

Between 1994 and 1995, for instance, People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals, known as PETA, gave over $70,000 to an

ALF criminal named Rodney Coronado, who was convicted of

arson, a felony in connection with the $1.7 million firebombing of

a Michigan State University research facility. This amount, by the

way, is more than 10 times the total that the same organization,

PETA, devoted to animal shelters during those 2 years. In addition,

both PETA and its president, Ingrid Newkirk, are acknowledged financial supports of an organization called ‘‘No Compromise,’’ which

operates on behalf of and for the underground supporters of the

65

Animal Liberation Front. I have just seen their tax returns for the

fiscal year 2000. During that year PETA gave $1,500 to the North

American Earth Liberation Front. They didn’t even try to hide it.

Now, considering that nobody claims to lead or direct the Earth

Liberation Front, it’s curious that PETA was able to cut them a

check.

I question—if you get a check and you can deposit it, you must

have a bank account, and if you have a bank account, there must

be someone who is an officer of the organization.

I think PETA, as an example, should be one of those organizations that eventually loses its tax exempt status if it is able to participate in funding of organizations like this.

Also during fiscal year 2000, PETA gave $5,000 to the Josh

Harper Support Committee. This is again information that just

came to me within the last 24 hours. Josh Harper is an ALF-affiliated criminal who hosts an Internet video magazine full of ALF

propaganda. He’s been arrested a half dozen times and was convicted in 1998 for an assault on a police officer, and spent 45 days

in jail for this assault.

Another eco-criminal, Dave Foreman, pled guilty in 1991 to felony conspiracy in a plot to blow up the power lines of three nuclear

power generating stations. Mr. Foreman was a co-founder of the

radical Earth First organization, and this is the group from which

the Earth Liberation Front split during a 1992 meeting in England.

Among its other claims to fame, Earth First actually published the

newsletter articles in their journal from which the Unabomber, Ted

Kaczinsky, chose his last two victims.

Now, here is a current issue of ‘‘Earth First.’’ It’s the current

issue of ‘‘Earth First.’’ I’d like to read to you from a section that

shows pictures of people that are called ‘‘Most Wanted Eco-terrorists.’’ Toward the bottom of the article, underneath the picture of

many men and women, it says, ‘‘The earth is not dying. It is being

killed, and the people who are killing it have names and addresses.’’ And that’s what you have here, names and addresses of people

from universities, industries, business in general.

Now, just so that you don’t think that’s an anomalous, once-ina-while, or I should say once-in-a-long-while occurrence, there’s another group called SHAC. SHAC stands for Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. SHAC is an organization that has terrified anyone

connected with supporting Huntingdon Life Science, which is a

British firm that does animal research to try and find cures for

breast cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and other diseases

which can only be found—cures can only be found through some

animal testing, most of which is done on rodents.

And what they have done, is they have gone after people who are

investors in the organization. There is a gentleman by the name of

Parker Quillen, who holds less than a 10 percent interest in the organization, Huntingdon Life Science. And reading from the

website, the SHAC website, it suggests he drives a bright blue

Audi coupe, license plate number, gives his license plate number.

He’s 6 feet, 180 pounds, in his 40’s, has glasses and wears a cap.

He has a blond wife, Joan, black and white dog named Barney.

Usually he goes out of town on weekends and comes back on SunVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
66

days around 5:30 p.m. Then it gives his home address and his two

home phone numbers.

An organization called the Ruckus Society was started by another Earth First co-founder named Mike Roselle. This group was

largely responsible for the 1999 anti-World Trade Organization protest in Seattle, which ended in mass rioting and the destruction of

various businesses. The Ruckus Society trains young activists in

the techniques of ‘‘monkey-wrenching,’’ which when applied, result

in property crimes of enormous financial cost.

The Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network, which is

another outfit founded by—

Mr. MCINNIS. [Presiding] Mr. Berman?

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, sir?

Mr. MCINNIS. We need to wrap up. I know that you had a—

Mr. BERMAN. I am sorry, sir. I’ll be done in 30 seconds.

Just want you to know that these organizations have received

contributions from the Ted Turner Foundation, the Ben & Jerry’s

Foundation. They have received money from the Tides Foundation,

which in turn has been funded by the Ford Foundation.

And as a close to my testimony, I know this is not the proper

Committee of jurisdiction, but I would hope that somebody would

take a look at the tax-exempt status of some of these organizations

that are either directly or indirectly funding some of this domestic

terrorism.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berman follows:]

Statement of Richard B. Berman, Executive Director,

Center for Consumer Freedom

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard Berman. I am

the Executive Director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. The Center does not accept and has never received

government funds.

On behalf of American restaurant operators and food producers, I would like to

thank you for holding this hearing today. Eco-terrorism is indeed alive and well in

the United States of America, and it shares a common heritage with violent animalrights extremism. These radical movements have been responsible for well over

1,000 documented criminal acts in the U.S., most of which would be prosecuted as

felonies if the perpetrators could be brought to justice.

I am not talking about peaceful protest, pickets, sign waving, slogan chanting, or

forms of civil disobedience that are protected by the First Amendment. Rather,

America’s present environmental and animal-rights terrorists have committed arsons, assaults, vandalism on a massive scale, and a host of other property crimes

that cripple food producers and resource providers, and occasionally lay waste to entire restaurants.

On September 11th of last year, on the very day America mourned the loss of

thousands of lives to foreign terrorists, our own home-grown version (the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, known as ‘‘ELF’’ and ‘‘ALF’’) took

joint credit for firebombing a McDonald’s restaurant in Tucson, Arizona.

There is no doubt now, and the FBI concurs, that the Earth Liberation Front is

associated with the Animal Liberation Front. Special Agent David Szady (now the

U.S. counterintelligence executive) has told CNN that ‘‘by any sense or any definition, this is a true domestic terrorism group, that uses criminal activity to further

their political agenda.’’

During the past three years alone, ELF and ALF have claimed responsibility for

smashing bank windows, torching a chicken feed truck, burning a horse corral at

a Bureau of Land Management facility, firebombing dealer lots full of sport utility

vehicles, destroying valuable scientific laboratory equipment and many years worth

of irreplaceable research documents, ‘‘spiking’’ trees in the Pacific Northwest, and

even setting bombs under meat delivery trucks.

67

There should be no sympathy for intentionally committed felonies of this magnitude. Eco-terror and animal-rights crimes have become everyday events in America, yet they are among our most under-reported and least-punished offenses.

Members of the Subcommittee, on rare occasions the criminals responsible for

these violent and unlawful acts are captured. Just two weeks ago a pair of animalrights terrorists were sentenced to prison terms for attempting to blow up a dairy

truck near San Jose ́, California. They were caught red-handed, with home-made

bombs just as deadly as those being exploded by other terrorists in the Middle East.

But the vast majority of crimes like these go unpunished. The underground ELF

and ALF even have the gall to brag publicly about their felonies. ALF actually released a report in January, claiming responsibility for 137 crimes in 2001, and causing an estimated $17.3 million in damage.

ALF and ELF won’t stop with damage to people and businesses with whom they

disagree. Rather, they are aggressively recruiting new criminals to their vicious

gang. Incredibly, the group’s leaders have begun to distribute ‘‘how-to’’ manuals on

the Internet, describing how to build bombs and incendiary devices, how to destroy

fields of genetically-engineered food crops, and how to commit ‘‘arson,’’ ‘‘thievery,’’ and other felonies without leaving clues at the crime scene. There is even a volume

on the easiest way to sink a ship.

Any 10-year-old with a computer can download much of this reading material. For

a few dollars and the cost of postage, ALF ‘‘spokesperson’’ David Barbarash will

mail the rest of the materials to anyone who asks. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted

a copy of Mr. Barbarash’s disturbing catalog for the record.

Equally troubling is the extent to which some eco-terrorists and animal-rights

criminals have managed to garner support, both philosophical and financial, from

above-ground activist organizations, including those that enjoy the same tax benefits as our nation’s churches and universities.

Between 1994 and 1995, for instance, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals gave over $70,000 to an Animal Liberation Front criminal named Rodney Coronado,

who was convicted of arson, a felony, in connection with the $1.7 million

firebombing of a Michigan State University research facility. This amount, by the

way, is more than ten times the total that the same organization (PETA) devoted

to animal shelters during those two years. In addition, both PETA and its president,

Ingrid Newkirk, are acknowledged financial supporters of an organization called No

Compromise, which operates on behalf of, and for the ‘‘underground’’ supporters of

the Animal Liberation Front.

PETA raised over $15 million last year from the general public, all of it tax-exempt. When will PETA be held accountable?

Another eco-criminal, Dave Foreman, pled guilty in 1991 to felony conspiracy in

a plot to blow up the power lines of three nuclear power generating stations. Mr.

Foreman was a co-founder of the radical ‘‘Earth First!’’ organization, the group from

which the Earth Liberation Front split during a 1992 meeting in the United Kingdom. Among its other claims to fame, Earth First! actually published the newsletter

articles (in the Earth First! Journal) from which ‘‘Unabomber’’ Ted Kaczinsky chose

his last two victims.

An organization called the Ruckus Society was started by another Earth First! cofounder named Mike Roselle. This group was largely responsible for the 1999 anti

WTO protests in Seattle, which ended in mass rioting and the destruction of

Starbucks and McDonald’s restaurants. The Ruckus Society trains young activists

in the techniques of ‘‘monkeywrenching’’ which, when applied, result in property

crimes of enormous financial cost.

The Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network (another outfit founded by

Mr. Roselle) are tax-exempt organization that have enjoyed contributions from such

mainstream sources as Ted Turner and Ben & Jerry’s. When will this breeding

ground for environmental criminals be held accountable?

Ruckus, by the way, also gets funding from a San Francisco outfit called the Tides

Foundation, which distributes other foundations’ money while shielding the identity

of the actual donors. Our tax law permits this sort of money-laundering. If the public is prevented from learning where a tax-exempt organization like the Ruckus Society gets their money, then the legal loopholes that permit foundations like Tides

to operate as it does should be closed.

Mr. Chairman, these are all serious charges that I am making, and I urge this

Committee to fully investigate the damage that ALF, ELF, and other like-minded

terrorist groups have caused to American businesses, American livelihoods, and the

American psyche. I would also urge the appropriate Congressional committee to explore the tax-exempt status of groups that have helped to fund—directly or indirectly—these domestic terrorists.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

68

INVENTORY OF EXHIBITS TO MR. BERMAN’S TESTIMONY

1. Joint ‘‘communique ́’’ from the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, issued on September 11, 2001, taking responsibility for the fire-bombing

of a McDonald’s restaurant in Tucson, AZ: http://groups.google.com/ groups?q=ALF+McDonalds+Tucson&selm=9nuodm$259s$1@pencil.math.missouri.

edu

2. New York Post article from June 14, 2001 describing significant damage to a

Bank of New York branch in Suffolk County, NY

3. Earth Liberation Front ‘‘communique ́’’ taking responsibility for torching a U.S.

Bureau of Land Management horse corral facility near Susanville, CA: http://

www.earthliberationfront.com/news/2001/011015c1.html

4. AP story from July 21, 2001, linking ELF criminals to the arsons of a police

station and a Chevrolet sport utility vehicle dealer. One suspect, Jeffrey Luers, was

later convicted and sentenced to 22 years in prison for crimes including the SUV

attack.

5. ELF ‘‘communique ́’’ related to a tree-spiking crime in the Nez Perce National

Forest (November 5, 2001): http://www.earthliberationfront.com/news/2001/

011105c1.html

6. ALF press release related to the arson of a chicken feed truck owned by Rose

Hill Farms in North Vernon, IN (July 4, 2000): http://www.animalliberation.net/

news/00/000704m1.html

7. ALF press release related to the destruction of nearly $1 million in property

at an agricultural biotechnology laboratory on the campus of Michigan State University (December 31, 1999): http://www.animalliberation.net/news/99/991231c1.html

8. AP story detailing (August 13, 1991) how Earth First! co-founder Dave Foreman pled guilty to felony conspiracy in connection with a plot to blow up power lines

serving three nuclear facilities. He was given a suspended sentence, and his felony

conviction was replaced with a misdemeanor plea upon the completion of his probation.

9. Article from the San Francisco Chronicle describing the sentencing of ALF

terrorists Peter Schnell and Matthew Whyte for the attempted arson of trucks belonging to a dairy distributor (January 29, 2002): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi -bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/29/MN29394.DTL

10. Scripps–Howard news story about an Earth Liberation Front attack on a

warehouse used to store biotech cotton, published in the Sacramento Bee on March

5, 2001. The story describes, among other things, the 1992 spin-off of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) from Earth First!

11. Excerpt from the transcript of the ‘‘guilty plea’’ hearing of convicted

‘‘Unabomber’’ Theodore Kaczynski, held in Sacramento, California on January 22,

1998 (United States vs. Theodore Kaczynski). Kaczynski willingly agreed with the

prosecution’s assertion that he used an article published in the Earth First! Journal

to choose at least one of the victims of his fatal mail bombs. http://www.cdfe.org/

guilty.htm

12. Excerpt from an Internet web page titled ‘‘About No Compromise,’’ archived

on May 15, 1999. No Compromise is an organization which publishes a journal on

behalf of ‘‘underground’’ members of the Animal Liberation Front. Among the

group’s ‘‘Steering Committee’’ is at least one acknowledged ALF terrorist. Among

the group’s listed financial supporters are Ingrid Newkirk and her organization,

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). http://web.archive.org/web/

19990501135838/http://www.enviroweb.org/nocompromise/about.html

13. A page from the 1995 annual tax return (form 990) of People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals (PETA), showing a $45,200 payment for the ‘‘support committee’’ of Rodney Coronado, a felon. Mr. Coronado was convicted of arson in federal

court for the 1992 firebombing of a Michigan State University research lab.

14. Another page from PETA’s 1995 annual tax return, showing a $25,000 ‘‘loan’’

to Rodney Coronado’s father, Ray Coronado. In a telephone call on February 5,

2002, the elder Coronado acknowledged that the money was a gift, not a loan, and

was used for his son’s ultimately failed legal defense.

15. Cover page for PETA’s tax return (form 990) for the fiscal year ending July

31, 2000 (the most recent year available). It shows a one-year income of over $15.8

million, all of it tax exempt. In that same year, PETA spent over $17 million, and

still had $4 million left over in assets. This form is available on-line from the

California Attorney General’s Office ‘‘charities search’’ web site. http://167.10.5.131/

Ct0401—0500/0439/1MTSWW8.PDF

16. Tax return pages from 1999 and 2000 showing $592,000 in payments from

The Foundation to Support Animal Protection (FSAP) to the Physicians Committee

for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). These were the only grants made by FSAP durVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
69

ing those years. FSAP is housed at PETA’s Norfolk, Virginia headquarters, and is

co-chaired by PETA president Ingrid Newkirk and PCRM president Neal Barnard.

17. Letter (2 pages) co-signed by PCRM president Neal Barnard and former ALF

‘‘spokesperson’’ Kevin Kjonaas. Mr. Kjonaas is presently the leader of ‘‘Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty’’ (SHAC), an animal-rights organization which has been responsible for arsons, physical assaults, millions of dollars in property damage, and

over a hundred other criminal acts in the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

18. One page from a ‘‘Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty’’ (SHAC) Internet web site,

advocating the harassment of specific employees of Quilcap Corporation, because the

company owns a 10% stake in Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). Information is given

on the targets’ physical description, spouses, family pets, unlisted phone numbers,

and even license plate numbers. http://www.october29.org/shacusa/investor—

oct22.htm

19. Descriptions from two SHAC web pages wherein ALF terrorists take credit for

vandalism, breaking-and-entering, cradit-card fraud, and grand larceny. These

crimes were perpetrated against Mr. Warren Stephens, whose investment company

bailed out Huntingdon Life Sciences after its British investors had been so terrorized by SHAC that they pulled their financing of HLS. While ALF took credit for

these crimes, SHAC publicized them, suggesting that the two are connected if not

identical. Kevin Kjonaas leads SHAC. He was previously the ‘‘spokesperson’’ for

ALF. http://www.october29.org/shacusa/news—jan3.htm: http://www.october29.org/

shacusa/news—jan6.htm

20. A copy of the ‘‘Black Cat Distro’’ catalog (in its entirety), created and circulated on the Internet by ALF ‘‘spokesperson’’ David Barbarash. Mr. Barbarash

sells arson manuals, how-to guides on building incendiary devices, handbooks on destroying biotech food crops, and other publications that advocate illegal activity.

Some of these materials are written by avowed ELF and ALF members; others were

written by Earth First! members, including that group’s founders. While Mr.

Barbarash lives in Canada, he does accept orders from the United States.

www.tao.ca/otter/Black—Cat—Distro—Catalogue.pdf

21. Internet web site pages showing two $50,000 payments (1997 and 1999) from

the (Ted) Turner Foundation to the Ruckus Society. http://

www.turnerfoundation.org/turner/forest97–2.html: http://www.turnerfoundation.org/

turner/habitat99–2.html

22. Internet web page showing a $100,000 payment from the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation to the Ruckus Society, during the year 2001: http://www.benjerry.com/foundation/funding.html

23. Page from the 1999 annual tax return of the Tides Foundation, showing a

$5,000 payout to the Ruckus Society. Because of the Tides’ nature as a pass-through

grantor, there is no legal way to determine where this money originated. Tides isn’t

legally obligated to tell. http://www.tidesfoundation.org/form—990.cfm

24. A published profile of the Ruckus Society from www.ActivistCash.com, including quotes from its leaders about the nature and necessity of violence. Mr. Berman’s

organization publishes this web site. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activistcash/

org—detail.cfm?ORG—ID=188

25. Transcript of a Fox News Channel segment (February 12, 2001) dealing with

the tactics of the Rainforest Action Network, an organization founded by Mike Roselle, a former Earth First!er who also co-founded the Ruckus Society: http://

www.ranamuck.org/foxnews.htm

26. ‘‘Government’s Sentencing Memorandum’’ (in its entirety) from The United

States of America vs. Rodney Coronado. Submitted July 31, 1995 by United States

Attorney Michael H. Dettmer. The Hon. Richard A. Enslen presided. http://

www.cdfe.org/Sentencing—Memo.pdf

27. ‘‘Setting Fires With Electrical Timers: An Earth Liberation Front Guide’’ (in

its entirety), a how-to manual on building and detonating incendiary devices. This

document is available on the Internet and can be printed by any 10-year-old with

a computer. http://www.earthliberationfront.com/library/elf—manual300.pdf

28. End-of-year report (in its entirety) released by ALF ‘‘spokesperson’’ David

Barbarash on January 12, 2002. The report smugly detailing 137 crimes committed

by both ELF and ALF terrorists, which resulted in an estimated $17.3 million in

damages. Note: this is ALF’s estimate. Actual property damage totals are likely several times higher. http://www.animalliberation.net/library/2001DirectActions.pdf

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Berman.

We will being with the questions. I will start with questioning.

Mr. Jarboe, can you give me an idea—first of all, what is the statute of limitations on the fire in Vail, and are we making progress

on resolution?

Mr. JARBOE. Yes, sir. The fire in Vail is still under investigation,

as all of these other incidents that have been discussed here today.

We’ll pursue those until we get subjects in custody.

Mr. MCINNIS. And the priority within the FBI, are they devoting

the resources that are necessary to get ahead of this thing?

Mr. JARBOE. Yes, sir. The No. 1 priority in the Domestic Terrorism Program, which I run, is ALF/ELF. Actually, the only thing

that has slowed us down and put us behind schedule is the unfortunate attack on September 11th, and then the anthrax issue in

October that affected Congress so badly. That has put us behind

because all of our resources have been put into those investigations. We’re now getting those resources back regrouping, and we

intend again to have ALF/ELF at the top of our list of terrorist

groups that we’re going after.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Wharton, are you aware of the status of the

fire investigation; are you satisfied?

Mr. WHARTON. We have been in regular contact with local FBI

officers, who have assured us that it is a priority and that it is very

much an open investigation.

Mr. MCINNIS. And what was the amount of damages, because

see, I hear from 12 to 25 million. Can you give me a— Mr. WHARTON. The lost assets were 12 million. The higher figures include loss of business from other local businesses, their estimations, but the actual loss of assets was $12 million.

Mr. MCINNIS. Now, I think it was important, as you just mentioned, Mr. Wharton, that a number of people, the little tee-shirt

shop downtown, people like that, that suffered as a result of this

shortsighted action.

Mr. WHARTON. And those people by and large, at least from the

anecdotal information I’ve received, weren’t covered by loss-of-business insurance, et cetera, because it’s just so hard to quantify.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Hicks, very briefly, have you ever had any

employee injured as a result of say a steel rod put into a tree or

some other type act of environmental terrorism?

Mr. HICKS. Not that I’m aware of.

Mr. MCINNIS. And, Mr. Berman, you obviously have spent a lot

of time on researching these different affiliates. Summarize again

for very briefly, the Animal Liberation Front is tied in with the

Earth Liberation Front, is tied in with PETA, that is tied in. Can

you go ahead and walk me through that? Are they in fact—they all

have fingers into each other? Do they have corresponding boards?

Mr. BERMAN. There are people who serve on the same boards.

There is funding that goes back and forth. Some of the groups have

been spun off to create a different persona.

I think one of the classics is that PETA created the Physicians

Committee for Responsible Medicine. The Physicians Committee

for Responsible Medicine is funded by a foundation that is—that

only has PETA money. And the two people who decide where the

money goes is the president of the Physicians Committee for ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
79

sponsible Medicine and the president of PETA. And when you ask

the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are they connected to PETA, they say, ‘‘Oh, no, we have no connection at all.’’

Except that’s where they get the money.

Now, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has in

turn co-signed a letter with the fellow Kevin—Kevin Kjonaas, who

used to be the spokesperson for ALF. He is now the spokesperson

for SHAC, which is the group that is going after any investor of

Huntingdon Life Science.

So you can trace it from PETA—and I know this is somewhat

confusing if you don’t see it on paper—you can trace it from PETA

to their foundation, to the Physicians Committee on Responsible

Medicine, to SHAC, which is the group that is going after people

who work for companies, and displaying their information and family information on the Internet and suggesting that people ought to

do something with it. That is pretty seedy at best.

Mr. MCINNIS. And, Mr. Berman, two things. One, this physicians

group you talk about, is that endorsed by the American Medical?

Mr. BERMAN. The American Medical Association has trashed

their reputation. In fact, by their own admission, they have less

than 5 percent of their membership as physicians. I would tell you

that the Physicians Committee of Responsible Medicine is neither.

Mr. MCINNIS. And, Mr. Berman, would you provide for the Committee kind of a stick chart of the answer that you have just give

to me, so that we can have it laid out in front of us what your investigation has revealed?

Mr. BERMAN. I will be happy to do that.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you.

Mr. Inslee?

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.

Mr. Jarboe, I want to ask about some of the other victims of violence that we talked about. For instance, the group that was in the

Forest Service office that was bombed in Carson City. You are familiar with that incident, I assume?

Mr. JARBOE. Yes.

Mr. INSLEE. In 1997 the Justice Department reported to Congress that they recommended, quote, ‘‘Continued vigorous investigation of these crimes, adequate protection for Federal officials

who have been threatened, and vigorous prosecution of individuals

who resort to violence in the name of some higher cause,’’ close

quote.

How has the FBI responded to that recommendation?

Mr. JARBOE. That instance and those issues are handled by our

Criminal Division which comes outside the domestic terrorism

issue. It’s assault of a Federal officer. I can—I’ll be happy to supply

a written response and the figures that you’re interested in, but

since I don’t work in that arena, I’d hesitate to give you specific figures and specific actions that that other division is taking at this

time.

Mr. INSLEE. I would appreciate that. If you can do that, I would

be appreciative. Has the FBI ever arrested anyone for criminal activity directed at Federal land managers or their offices?

80

Mr. JARBOE. And again, outside the terrorism issue, that’s handled by the Criminal Division. I’m going to have to defer to them,

and I will get those answers for you.

Mr. INSLEE. As far as how we define terrorism, let’s say somebody was angry at the Forest Service for enforcing the Endangered

Species Act. Let’s say that it reduced timber harvest on their land,

and that they were angry about that, they thought that was wrong.

And they got together with a group of people who thought it was

wrong to enforce the Endangered Species Act. And they caused— and they put a bomb in a Forest Service office and blew it up like

happened in Carson City. Would that be considered terrorism as

the way the FBI looks at it?

Mr. JARBOE. What you have to look at is the motivation behind

the criminal act itself. If the motivation was to induce over—a

long-term change in the Government or political entities, or social

environment with a political agenda at the heart of the motivation,

then it would become—come under the terrorist umbrella. If it’s

just a one-time act, irritation at an individual, or a specific one instance without looking at the long-term social change, then it

would not.

Mr. INSLEE. Do you think that the Federal Government’s response from a law enforcement standpoint ought to be the same in

that situation as what occurred in the Vail arson situation; should

there be the same vigor of investigation, for instance?

Mr. JARBOE. I do, absolutely. And regardless of whether it falls

under the Criminal Division or the Terrorism Division, generally,

the agents, especially in the smaller areas, they’re covered by the

RAs, it’s the same investigator working under the same rules with

the same enthusiasm and the same push from management to go

out, find the perpetrators, get the legal evidence you need to go to

a court of law and get them convicted.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Wharton, if I can ask you, you and your group

have been the victim of a criminal act. Would you suggest to us

that we treat other victims of other criminal acts, even if they’re

Government employees, who sort of are attacked by the other end

of the ideological spectrum, should we treat those with equal respect, sanctity in an investigation?

Mr. WHARTON. Yes, sir, I would say so.

Mr. INSLEE. We appreciate your comment in that regard, and we

will try to do that.

Mr. Berman, I wanted to ask you some questions about some

folks that you’ve pointed a rather stark, accusatory finger at. I

want to ask you about those questions. And the reason is, is that

I think we’ve learned a couple things in our history. One, that we

need to be very vigorous in our investigation of terrorism, and two,

we need to be fairly cautious and careful on who we convict without adequate evidence, if you will. And you’ve pointed your finger

at quite a number of groups: Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, the Ford

Foundation, and the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. And

I guess, are you asserting that the Ben & Jerry’s folks have been

involved in any criminal conduct?

Mr. BERMAN. I’m suggesting, sir, that they’ve directed money to

organizations like the Ruckus Society, which train people in police

confrontation tactics, and the Ruckus Society exists to train people

81

at ELF in monkey-wrenching, and there’s evidence of their operating together, and the police have indicated that the Ruckus Society was basically the group that was responsible for the violent

protests in Seattle and here in Washington some months ago connected with trade organization meetings.

Mr. INSLEE. So I guess the answer to my question would be no,

you are not asserting that then; is that correct?

Mr. BERMAN. The answer is, is that they are giving money to organizations that participate in those activities. I don’t think that

they are giving money with the express purpose of funding those

activities, but they are giving money for purposes of sustaining the

organization, which may or may not have a direct—direct use when

it comes to training people.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, Mr. Berman, have you filed any criminal complaint with any law enforcement agency against the folks associated with Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, the Ford Foundation or the

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals?

Mr. BERMAN. No, sir, that’s not my role.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, that is kind of curious to me because you have

come forward to this Committee, and you are pointing these accusatory fingers at groups that you are ideologically against. You are

selling lobbies for the tobacco industry and the restaurant industry,

and against Mothers Against Drunk Driving, because you are

against reducing the blood alcohol system. And it bothers me that

you come forward and point these fingers in this Committee at

groups you are opposed to without—you are telling me you have

never filed a charge against these folks criminally. If you want to

point this finger, why haven’t you filed some charge criminally

against these groups?

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, I believe that the witness has appropriately answered the question. You asked him the question if he

felt there was criminal intent of Ben & Jerry’s for example. He said

no. He said they had given funding to those, so obviously he is not

going to file a criminal complaint. All we are doing now is getting

to the point where, Mr. Inslee, with all due respect, it appears to

me to be a little intimidation of the witness, and—

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I appreciate the Chair’s editorial comment, but

the question stands, and I would like the witness to answer it. If

you can answer my question?

Mr. MCINNIS. What was the question, Mr. Inslee?

Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to answer. I think I know the

question, and I thank the Chair for interceding.

I make no apologies about various clients that I have, but more

importantly, Mr. Inslee, I am not the agency that should bring a

criminal complaint against anyone. I did not allege that the Ford

Foundation was connected with any terrorist activity. I said that

the Ford Foundation had given money to another foundation, which

is the Tides Foundation. If I failed to say that, let me interject

that. They gave money to the Tides Foundation, who in turn gives

money to the Ruckus Society.

Ben & Jerry’s gave money directly to Ruckus, but I don’t know

that Ben & Jerry’s—well, in fact, being that you—being that you’re

inquiring this directly, perhaps I can tell you, at least in one case,

what the money was supposed to be used for, and then you can—

82

you can determine for yourself whether or not this was a proper

expenditure of funds.

I hope you’ll just allow me just 1 minute while I flip through

some tax returns here. Well, here we are. This is the Turner Foundation, 1999, ‘‘$50,000 to the Ruckus Society for support of direct

action training camps designed to train grass roots advocates in the

development of integrated strategic campaigns.’’ Well, that’s a lot of weasel words, but at the end of the day the

Ruckus Society challenges people—excuse me—trains people to

challenge police, and the police will tell you that that is what the

Ruckus Society is all about. In fact, I think they appropriately

named themselves Ruckus.

I am not suggesting to you that Ted Turner or the people that

sit on the Turner Foundation are anarchists. But I am telling you

that the people who get this money use it for activities that you

would not approve of, or I trust you wouldn’t approve of.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Berman, I want to read a quote that has been

attributed to you, and if it is inaccurate, I hope you will tell me.

I read an interview with you in a magazine called ‘‘The Chain

Leader.’’ It is a restaurant trade publication. And it said, referring

to the pro-vegetarian—by the way, of which I am not, I eat meat,

wanted to let you know that—and you allegedly said, quote, ‘‘Our

offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger. We’ve got to attack

their credibility as spokespersons,’’ close quote.

Now, I want to tell you, I had some concerns to make sure that

this hearing focused on the folks who are really responsible for violence, and it didn’t turn into a situation where people just sort of

threw barbs at their political enemies. First off, was that your

quote? And if so, two, in fact, is that your offensive strategy, to attack the credibility of your political enemies?

Mr. BERMAN. Well, it is a strategy to—to reposition people who

have a pristine image which is undeserved. And so if in fact people

have been guilty of crimes against society, I think it’s fair to let the

general public know about those crimes, and not let them go unreported. If that’s shooting the messenger, then I’m guilty of it.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Berman. I think that was a very

candid answer.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. I would like to thank all the panelists

for their good testimony.

Mr. Jarboe, in your testimony you mentioned a few organizations

specifically. About how many eco-terrorism groups does the FBI believe now operate in the United States, and which are the most

dangerous?

Mr. JARBOE. The most dangerous right now are the ALF/ELF.

They’re the most active. They cause most of the destruction that

has been mentioned. SHAC is out there. Justice Department is out

there. And if you want to go into all of the domestic terrorism

groups, we’ll get outside the eco-terrorism into the National Alliance, the Aryan Nations. There are a long litany. I can supply you

with a whole long list of domestic terrorism groups, but right now

as far as activity, destruction and danger to the public at large, I

would put ALF/ELF at the top.

83

Specifically, the white supremacists, the Aryan Nations, and

then those affiliates are on point individually, and with individual

action more dangerous because they purposely go out to harm individuals or kill them. ALF/ELF says they don’t do that, but if you

take the totality of it, a one-time event versus the whole structure,

then ALF/ELF by and large is the most active, most prolific group

we’re now looking at.

Mr. PETERSON. Can you describe the profile of a typical ELF

member?

Mr. JARBOE. I don’t know if there is any typical profile.

Mr. PETERSON. What sort of education, background, age range

and so on?

Mr. JARBOE. You have young. You have old. You have well educated. You have poorly educated. You have idealists who have— disenfranchised with society. It runs the gamut. If you want to call

a typical member, they would be a young person or the young

idealist. Mr. Rosebraugh is probably as typical as you’re going to

get.

Mr. PETERSON. With the current activity that you said is increasing, do you think it’s possible eventually that result in loss of life

could happen from their actions?

Mr. JARBOE. Absolutely. If they continue with the road that

they’re going down, I’m sure there will be. Testimony was made

earlier by the Congresswoman about a fireman who just barely

made it out of a fire alive. And we’ve had witnesses, firemen, who

have testified similarly. They were beams, and that they tested

those beams after the fire was extinguished. If they had been up

there another minute or two, they would have fallen to the floor

and right in the middle of the fire. If they continue, someone’s

going to get hurt or killed.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, thank you. I really appreciate your testimony, and I hope you will keep this Committee informed of what

we need to know in the future.

Mr. JARBOE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Wharton, you talked about the $12 million to

the facility. But what do you think was the estimated damage to

the community and the loss of business and the loss of tourism?

Anybody estimated the overall— Mr. WHARTON. There have been estimates, Congressman, and they have ranged in the area of $25 million and above, but as I

said earlier, it’s a very difficult figure to try and calculate. I would

say though on just the—the emotional and psychological damage,

it’s been severe. It was something that shook individuals, the entire

community to their core. And that hasn’t healed.

Mr. PETERSON. How long before you were back in business?

Mr. WHARTON. We actually opened the mountain on time. We replaced temporarily Two Elk with a temporary structure for that ski

season. The lifts were up and operating, so we opened the operation on time just through a herculean effort on the part of our

company and our community.

Mr. PETERSON. Again, thank you for coming here today and sharing your horrible experience with us.

Mr. Berman, I want to congratulate you. You were just kind of

chastised for what you are doing, but I want to congratulate you

84

for telling it like it is. I mean when we give money to organizations, if they become less than appropriate, then we should be

apologizing and removing our resources. But when organizations

and national leaders give money routinely, and prestigious foundations give money routinely to organizations who get on the criminal

side, I think the world needs to know that. It will influence behavior.

We all know that a lot of our very liberal foundations give to organizations that the forefathers who raised those fortunes would be

absolutely rolling over in their graves for. We see it all the time.

What if anything did the Animal Liberation Front have to do

with the violent October 29th protest in Little Rock, Arkansas, and

are ELF and SHAC made up of the same group of lawbreakers?

Mr. BERMAN. Well, I mentioned earlier about the listing of

Parker Quillen’s address and the information about his family on

the Internet. Another investor in Huntingdon Life Science was

Warren Stephens, who is an investment banker, and who basically

bailed out Huntingdon Life Science because it was about to go

under. The SHAC organization targeted Warren Stephens, targeted

his home in New York, bragged on the Internet about trashing his

home in New York, because he was an investor in the company.

They went after employees of Huntingdon Life Science in Little

Rock where the Stephens’ operation is located. SHAC again has as

its apparent leader, Kevin Kjonaas, who spells his name different

ways, and Kevin Kjonaas was the spokesperson for ALF prior to

him moving over to SHAC. It’s difficult for me to tell you what

their real formal connection is other than the fact that it goes back

to one of the earlier comments, that there is this trading of personnel, there’s this trading of money. There are people who sit on

joint boards. And at the end of the exercise, it’s all about the same

effort.

I believe that the U.S. Attorney’s Office is involved, heavily involved, because of the Little Rock demonstration against Stephens

and their employees.

Mr. PETERSON. I certainly hope so. I wish I had more time, but

I will wait for another round.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jarboe, can you estimate how many other—how many universities and colleges have been victimized by arson and vandalism?

Mr. JARBOE. I can’t give you a specific today, but it’s numerous

across the country. It’s not located—or just isolated in one location.

Universities typically do research. They are a prime target, not

only the animal research, but then—now we’re looking at genetic

engineering, and genetic engineering is becoming a field that’s

more popular now than it was years ago, and now the ELF folks

are starting to target that. I can get you a specific number if you

would wish.

Mr. SIMPSON. I would appreciate that.

Mr. Hicks, has your company experienced acts involving property

destruction other than the Monmouth fire that you talked about?

85

Mr. HICKS. Yes, we have, Congressman. We had a timber sale in

Southern Oregon called the Sugarloaf Timber Sale. Over 100

spikes were found from tree spiking.

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask you a question. What happens when

a chain saw hits a tree spike?

Mr. HICKS. Well, it breaks the chain first thing. But I’ve never

actually had it happen. I’ve hit a fence or two with a chain saw,

and it hangs things up. I think the greater danger is in the sawmills and the veneer plants. All of our logs go to veneer plants that

are in our area, and they have both sawmills and veneer plants in

Southern Oregon. So they did find some of the spikes when they

hit the lathe, and most of which they knew they were looking for

spikes. And they had metal detectors out in the yard when they

were scaling the logs to determine if they were there. So they found

most of them, but they did hit some—some did hit the lathe, and

they damage a lathe knife.

Mr. SIMPSON. Has the company experienced unlawful activities

that may not rise to the level of these terrorist type activities that

we are talking about?

Mr. HICKS. Yes. Certainly the kind of activities that I was mentioning with the Sugarloaf sale. We also had RAN, Rainforest Action Network, breach our security at our Boise Corporate office, got

up on the roof. I’m not exactly sure what their intent was. Our office is a small field office and it’s not a corporate office. So I don’t

know exactly what their intent was, but I know they caught them

up on the roof.

We had situations where we were trying to access our own fee

ground, and the groups—I don’t know if they claimed anything;

they did have stickers around with a RAN note on the—or ‘‘RAN’’ stenciled on the sticker, where they had pulled up some culvert

pipe on BLM ground and ruined the culvert. And then they also— presumably it was the same bunch—dug a ditch across the road

while it was raining, and caused some erosional damage to a fill

slope. They put up tripods, these three-legged things, so that when

you take it down, it’s dangerous for the guy up there, so presumably you won’t take it down. They put these up to delay our operations. They’ve had rocks, obstacles, old car bodies they put in the

road to delay operations. They’ve stopped a log truck so an accomplice could climb under the truck and chain himself to the truck.

So it’s mostly delay tactics and that sort of thing.

Mr. SIMPSON. And RAN is the Rainforest Action Network?

Mr. HICKS. That’s correct.

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you consider them an organization like ELF

and ALF?

Mr. HICKS. I don’t know that they’ve risen to the level of

terrorism. I know that they’ve done unlawful type of acts in terms

of breaching our security and trying to disrupt our operations. I

would defer to the FBI here as to whether they’re terrorism or just

unlawful or not. That’s not my area.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Jarboe?

Mr. JARBOE. There’s a fine line between lawful activity and unlawful. I’m not looking at the Rainforest folks right now as a

terrorist group. What I do have in my section is a member of our

Office of General Counsel, an attorney, and he’s extremely critical

86

because we’re looking at a very fine line between First Amendment

rights and unlawful activity. Anything that we do, any case we

open, any investigation we start, it has to be run through our counsel to make sure it meets all the parameters to be an investigation.

Again, we want to lean far to the conservative side, and not step

over or even get too close to the line where we’re going to step on

somebody’s civil liberties and civil rights.

Mr. SIMPSON. And I appreciate that, because I agree with that.

I think people ought to have the right to protest things. They ought

to have the right to protest forest sales and other types of things.

That is their First Amendment rights to do so. But when they engage in illegal activities of trying to stop it, that is where they cross

the line.

What bothers me, I guess, is just a general statement. I don’t

know if anybody can answer or not, is that we get this North

American Animal Liberation Front press office 2001 Year-End Direct Action Report, which reports all the activities that they have

engaged in and taken credit for. Marshall Farms, 30 beagles and

10 ferrets rescued, claimed by ALF. It goes on and on, including

fires and burnings and all that kind of stuff. How this stuff can get

out on the Internet, and be put out on the Internet, where an organization is taking credit for something like this, and it doesn’t seem

like we can do anything about it. I guess it kind of surprises me

that we can get terrorist camps in other places but we have trouble

getting them here in the United States. And that is really not a

question because we are out of time.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Otter.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I

begin, I had a opening statement prepared, and I would like that,

as well as a letter that I received from the Federated Women in

Timber of Summerville, Oregon. I would ask unanimous consent

that that be included in the record.

Mr. MCINNIS. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Otter follows:]

Statement of Hon. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Idaho

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. This is a timely hearing

on an issue that for far too long has been over looked. It is deeply troubling that

as our nation battles the evils of terrorism abroad, we also face serious threats at

home from so called eco-terrorists. These troubled individuals chose the despicable

tools of violence and terrorism in the name of environmentalism.

I know first-hand the kind of destruction these terrorists perpetrate. Twice during

the last year, the Biotechnology Laboratory at the University of Idaho in my district

was attacked. On March 5th the University of Idaho biotech building was attacked

by ELF who spray-painted painted the elevators, walls and windows. Again on June

10th the ELF - Night Action Kids cell claimed responsibility for painting the outside

of the building with a message: ‘‘Go Organic.’’ All told these events caused over

$20,000 damage to the University of Idaho Biotech Building.

In 1992 my district was also under attack from Earth First. Activists arrived in

mid–July to protest road building in the Cove and Mallard areas. Fearing damage

to road building equipment or tree spiking, the Forest Service responded by marshaling a force of federal law officers. The Nez Perce Forest Service spent more than

$260,000 to protect the public and the resources from this group.

I know of individuals and institutions who have been victims of ELF actions and

are reluctant to step forward today and discuss what happened to them for fear of

repercussions. This is just not right. No one should have to live in fear of attacks

for doing an honest days work. I appreciate those who have come forward today to

testify and help build a record for the committee.

87

Because of these attacks and concerns, I joined Congressman Nethercutt as a cosponsor of H.R. 2795 the Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2001. 1 look forward to

working with the committee as it considers all of the eco-terrorism prevention legislation. It is my hope we can pass meaningful reform that will deter these harmful

actions.

Eco-terrorists not only cause millions of dollars in damage to public and private

resources, they injure innocent people in the process and pose a serious threat to

innovation and scientific discovery. We must not allow this threat to society and to

science to go unpunished.

I would like to submit comments from the Federated Women in Timber for the

record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[A letter from the Federated Women in Timber of Summerville,

Oregon submitted for the record follows:]

FEDERATED WOMEN IN TIMBER

68069 HUNTER RD • SUMMERVILLE, OR 97876

503–534–5345

House of Representatives

Committee on Natural Resources

U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C.

February 6, 2002

Dear Mr. Chairman;

The federal government has a responsibility to protect rural America with the

same intensity that it finds itself preparing for in urban areas. The increasing number of senseless, targeted attacks on federal land .holdings, timber companies, public

and private buildings, recreational areas as well as American citizens by self proclaimed eco-terrorists need to receive the scrutiny and vigorous prosecution that the

victims of these senseless acts have long requested. .

The heightened awareness and required national security measures following the

terrorists attacks of September 2001, have extreme significance to the communities

who have, for two decades, suffered at the hands of home grown domestic terrorists.

Over the last few years there have been. an increasing number of violent, destructive acts targeting recreational facilities, natural resource providers and medical research facilities. A few examples: a half million dollar fire at a Medford, Oregon timber company, a $12 million dollar fire at a ski resort in Vail, Colorado, $100,000

worth of fence damage in Wyoming, equipment and buildings destroyed at a vaccine

lab in Wisconsin, damage to the Mexican consulate in Boston, arson fires In Indiana

and Michigan, construction site damage in New York and thousands of life threatening tree spikes throughout our national forests. These and other atrocities total

over $42 million dollars of damage alone in just the 11 contiguous western states

since 1980.

Local govemments are voicing concerns about the particular vulnerability of communities in rural, heavily forested and recreation areas. These communities have

concems regarding the health of our national forests and the potential for devastating human caused forest fires. The conditions of federally owned land,

particularty in the west are a disaster waiting to happen. The deterioration of these

public lands are due to an excessive accumulation of fuel loads during prolonged periods of ‘‘hands-off’ forest management practices. These fires threaten the safety of

residents, the protection of private property, air quality arc the water supplies of

rural watersheds.

Extreme voices in the environmental movement have been slow and often resistant to denounce these vicious attacks, and by this conspicuous hesitation, have colored their own efforts and illuminated some underlying core values. Rural Americans have been aware for two decades of environmental efforts to stop, at any cost,

activity on public or private property. These efforts have created an extremely volatile situation. A focused group of special-interest citizens have waged a rural cleansing war on America and its food and fiber producers. This practice has repeatedly

88

been enabled with the blessings of an intentionally mis-informed public and a sometimes willing, sometimes unsuspecting federal government Environmental groups

have fanned a flame of destruction toward America’s rural residents and the nation’s breadbasket. That devastation is currently being perpetrated by environmental zealots, armed with an almost religious conviction and, unfortunately, very

few actual facts.

Terrorism is terrorism. It is defined as ‘‘the use of violence and intimidation, especially for political purposes’’. By any other name that is environmental extremism.

Prior to 9–II, there appeared to be some degree of tolerance and accommodation for

these acts, despite the fact that they undermine orderly disposition of public issues

and disrupt community safety. Left unchecked, as they have been, the nature and

intensity of these violent acts have escalated. President Bush has asked other countries to eliminate the terrorists within their borders and has even offered our help

achieve that end. It is America’s duty to clean its own backyard of terrorists as well.

There is no distinction between whether these criminal, malicious attacks are perpetrated on Americans by foreign nationals or natural born citizens of this country.

If these acts of terror are taught, sanctioned or enabled by others, those who enable,

in cum, are just as guilty of acts of terror against Americans as those who would

perform these lawless acts.

Thank you for this opportunity to address this important issue. We appreciate all

you and your fellow congressmen do on our behalf.

Sincerely,

Colleen MacLeod

Federated Women in Timber

Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much.

Gentlemen, first let me thank you all very much for being here,

especially those of you folks—and I am especially glad you are here

from the FBI, sir—but especially you folks that represent private

industry, because I know that industry and institutions, relative to

this very hearing, in my district were threatened with reprisal if

they came before this Committee and testified. And so I take my

hat off to you, Mr. Wharton, to you, Mr. Hicks, and to you, Mr.

Berman, for being here, because you are speaking for a lot of

people that simply either they are CEOs or the presidents of the

universities or whoever it was, asked that their testimony not be

offered in front of this Committee. And you are speaking for some

very courageous people, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Hicks, let me ask you, has the fire which you experienced in

Oregon resulted from a change in the Forest Practices Act and your

buying from the Forest Service?

Mr. HICKS. Well, it certainly changed the way we look at pursuing Federal timber sales or any sales as far as that goes. We’re

a lot more cautious about how we pursue sales, and when I instruct the crew that’s going out and look at these sales, if it’s a particularly controversial sale, we may not—we may not pursue it as

hard. We’ll maybe discount for delays and extra security costs, and

any kind of extra cost that we might assume that are going to be

involved in that completion of that sale. But we have not stopped

looking at sales. We’ve just looked at them a lot more cautiously.

Mr. OTTER. Speaking of security, how has that changed; how has

this terrorist attack against your corporation changed your regard

for safety and the way you feel about it?

Mr. HICKS. Well, after listening today, I’m a little more concerned about my own safety, after listening to some of the comments. But we’ve increased our security around our facilities. Our

89

new office has complete video coverage inside and out. We’ve got,

in some cases where there wasn’t all-night guards, there are now.

Fencing and such things like that are up in some areas where they

weren’t, or they’re contemplated. It’s just a whole new ballgame in

terms of how we view security.

When we’re out in the woods, if we view traffic out there, we try

to get people to mark down license plates and understand who’s

out and about. So it’s just a raised consciousness of everybody within our organization.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Wharton, when you rebuilt—you did rebuild,

right?

Mr. WHARTON. Yes.

Mr. OTTER. When you rebuilt, what kind of materials did you rebuild the lodge that was burned down by terrorists?

Mr. WHARTON. Well, that was part of the irony, Congressman. It

was with logs.

Mr. OTTER. Logs that you had to buy from the Forest Service?

Mr. WHARTON. I don’t know honestly whether it was from the

Forest Service or not, but there were—

Mr. OTTER. You make my point, sir.

Mr. WHARTON. Yes.

Mr. OTTER. Is that it is kind of a self-defeating effort.

Mr. WHARTON. Actually, if I recall correctly, more logs were used

in the reconstruction of Two Elk than were cut down in the ski

area expansion that the ELF was protesting.

Mr. OTTER. Once again, Mr. Hicks, do you know a Rick Bailey?

Are you familiar with that name?

Mr. HICKS. I know who he is.

Mr. OTTER. Who is he?

Mr. HICKS. I don’t know the organization he’s with. He’s an environmental type from over in Northeast Oregon area. He’s—predominantly was involved with the Snake River issues. I happened

to see him at a leadership thing, and he made his case. He was

a likable sort of a guy, but he was very much pushing an agenda.

Mr. OTTER. I see. And can you tell me if he was arrested here

not too long ago for stealing timber from the National Forest

Service?

Mr. HICKS. I read that in a bulletin of some sort, and I couldn’t

tell you right now what it was. It was where he was arrested for

stealing some firewood, and frankly, I don’t know all the details of

that. I think I could get you the names of somebody that does

though.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you. I would like to pursue, Mr. Berman, if

I might, with you something that Mr. Simpson stated. How do

these people stay on the Internet? Who keeps them on the Internet? I mean are they—who is their service provider? Are they provided this service by America Online or how can they have these

catalogs for terrorism on the Internet?

Mr. MCINNIS. Let me remind the panel and my colleagues that

we need to kind of keep within the time restrictions only in that

we have one—

Mr. OTTER. I apologize.

90

Mr. MCINNIS. We have another panel, and I assume we want to

give them a fair opportunity before the 6 o’clock vote. So if you can

answer that very briefly, then we will proceed with Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. BERMAN. There is a provider in Canada, a hosting service in

Canada, which I assume is beyond the reach of the FBI. But

there’s also a domestic organization called Enviro Link, E-n-v-i-ro, Link, which hosts the main ALF website. And that is an organization providing technical assistance to, call it domestic terrorism,

call it legitimate discourse, if you will, but they are providing Internet services to ALF.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Nethercutt, you may proceed.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks, gentlemen, for being here today and for your testimony.

Mr. Jarboe, let me ask you about H.R. 2795, the Agroterrorism

Prevention Act that I have introduced and I referenced in my testimony. Will that help the FBI deal with some of the problems that

we have had illustrated and testified to here today?

Mr. JARBOE. I would defer specific comment to the bill to the Department of Justice as the parent. What we would like in general

is more teeth to laws that are out there, to give us more flexibility

in our actions. If we are restricted, then what we can do is obviously going to be restricted. If laws are introduced to make it more

flexible for us, then we have more flexibility.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Would the RICO connection or provision assist

the FBI in sort of getting to the source of some of these terrorist

groups?

Mr. JARBOE. The RICO statutes are one that we are looking at

as a possibility to apply to our investigation, yes, sir.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Wharton, this particular bill has a provision for the hardening of facilities, for establishing a research

facility—program I should say, that would assist facilities in watching for terrorist acts and recording them and so forth. Would that

assist you folks in Vail, sort of this new late-generation determination of what is the highest and best security for facilities like this

and others?

Mr. WHARTON. I would think so, sir. I mean when this happened

to us, honestly, we were totally unprepared. We had never anticipated anything like this happening. We consulted a number of security experts and security firms from around the country who expressed not a lot of optimism in being able to cover an area that

is literally thousands of miles and dozens of buildings, scattered literally all over the countryside. So it has been a challenge for us

to try and figure out the right way to respond to this. So any assistance that we might have toward that end, I think would be

helpful.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. This measure also provides for a clearinghouse

at the FBI that would really quantify and get on a network the incidents of situations like Vail and University of Washington and

others, and local activities by ELF and ALF and other terrorist

groups.

Would that be helpful to anybody on the panel? I assume that

would assist the FBI, but it would also, I assume assist the police

91

force in Vail or in Oregon or elsewhere to be aware of the threat

nationwide and be able to be prepared for it. Would you agree with

that?

Mr. WHARTON. I certainly would agree very much. Again, when

this happened to us, we started getting on the Internet, making

phone calls, researching through the media of other companies and

individuals that had been the subject of this type of an attack, just

so we could try to, as quickly possible, learn as much as we could,

and that was a challenge. And it took us some time to try and see

what resources were out there.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Is that your experience, Mr. Hicks, in Oregon?

Mr. HICKS. We have a similar situation. We have woods deputies

out in the woods. The more they get together and share information, the better job they can do with each other and within the—

I’m sorry—within the law enforcement realm. So the more, the better. We’re going to have a better result.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Have the other three witnesses, besides Mr.

Jarboe, had a chance to look at legislative fixes or assistance to

this problem, specifically H.R. 2795; have you looked at it; are you

aware of it?

Mr. BERMAN. I have not, sir.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. And I thank the panel. I appreciate

you showing here today.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, are we getting another round briefly? I

have another couple questions if I may.

Mr. MCINNIS. OK. Go ahead, Mr. Inslee, but remember, in fact,

I think you have most of the interest in the panel. My guess is we

won’t run beyond 6 o’clock.

Mr. INSLEE. A couple questions if I may.

Mr. Jarboe, one of the witnesses, the tobacco industry lobbyist

has pointed some pretty stark accusatory fingers—

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, the Chair is not going to allow that remark to stand. Now, you want to—

Mr. INSLEE. Well, excuse me, Mr. Chair, but I will make such remarks as I deem appropriate and I think Mr. Berman has told us—

Mr. MCINNIS. Well, Mr. Inslee, I am—

Mr. INSLEE. —and I will continue to ask questions as I deem fit.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, I will adjourn the Committee if you

want to proceed with this type of behavior.

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate the Committee’s—

Mr. MCINNIS. We do now have a member of—but you owe respect

to this panel. We do not have a member of this panel who has identified themselves or appeared on behalf of the tobacco industry.

That remark is simply intended to inflame the witness. It is derogatory toward the witness and it has no place in this hearing.

Now, if you wish to proceed with a second round, and address the

witnesses as they should be addressed, you have lots of freedom

and a broad area of which you can ask questions. If not, we will

adjourn this panel, and we will proceed to the next panel.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair—

Mr. MCINNIS. That is your choice.

92

Mr. INSLEE. Let me respond to your statement. In fact, I heard

Mr. Berman express pride, pride that he has represented the tobacco industry, and that is fine. It was an entirely accurate characterization.

Mr. MCINNIS. That is fine, Mr. Inslee.

Mr. INSLEE. Why don’t you let me ask my question and see if— Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, this panel is excused.

I thank the panel for— Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, excuse me— Mr. MCINNIS. I am not taking any response from the panel.

Mr. INSLEE. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I must object to that.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, Mr. Inslee, for some reason, I think you

are confused as who is the Chairman of this Committee.

Mr. INSLEE. No, I am only confused as to why you are cutting

off—

Mr. MCINNIS. I do not intend to proceed— Mr. INSLEE. —an appropriate question— Mr. MCINNIS. I do not intend to proceed with the Committee on

Forest and Forest Health with you getting into some kind of diatribe on tobacco. That is not in place here.

Mr. INSLEE. Why don’t I— Mr. MCINNIS. Now, if you want to ask a question dealing with

the issue at hand without your little preamble on tobacco lobbyists

or whatever that was, you may proceed. If not, let’s get on to the

next panel and move on with our business.

Mr. INSLEE. Let me ask a question, Mr. Jarboe.

There has been some accusations by unidentified people I guess

here today, that various groups have been associated with terrorist

activity. That is a fairly strong charge to make. I am convinced

that there are terrorists afoot here and have been involved in significant, severe, and potentially catastrophic violence, one of them

at the University of Washington.

But I want to ask about this assertion that some of these groups

are involved in that. Is there any evidence that you are aware of

to suggest that the Ford Foundation has been involved in terrorist

activity?

Mr. JARBOE. No.

Mr. INSLEE. Is there any evidence that Ben & Jerry’s or the foundations with which Ben & Jerry’s is associated, have been involved

in terrorist activities?

Mr. JARBOE. No, I have none.

Mr. INSLEE. Is there any suggestion that the Mothers Against

Violence—excuse me—Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been

involved in terrorist activities?

Mr. JARBOE. No, sir.

Mr. INSLEE. Is there any suggestion that Mr. Ted Turner or the

Turner Foundation have been involved in terrorist activities?

Mr. JARBOE. No, I have no information.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Jarboe.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Jarboe, I take it that you have no information,

that includes today’s Committee hearing, that there has been no information presented to you that would make you change your answer?

Mr. JARBOE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

93

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you very much.

Let me, in all fairness, I want to give this next panel an appropriate time, so this panel is excused. Thank you. Sorry you had to

sit through a little difference on the Committee, but it makes it interesting.

And we will now ask the fourth panel to proceed to the table. On

Panel IV we have Mr. Wasley, Director, Law Enforcement and Investigations, USDA, Forest Service; Ms. Gloria Flora, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; and Dr. Pendleton, Government Accountability Project.

Again, with this panel, I am also going to ask you to take the

oath as we have the previous members.

Panel, we need to proceed here. If you would, please, raise your

right hand.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are

about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

truth, so help you God?

MEMBERS OF PANEL IV. I do.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. You may be seated.

Mr. Wasley will proceed. If you would just take note of the 5-

minute rule, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WASLEY, DIRECTOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. WASLEY. Mr. Chairman, I had a prepared statement. In lieu

of reading that, I would just submit it for the record, if you are so

inclined to accept it.

Mr. MCINNIS. Certainly we will accept written statements, and

we do allow you 5 minutes for summarization, if you would like,

or we can just proceed.

Mr. WASLEY. We would just proceed.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasley follows:]

Statement of William F. Wasley, Director, Law Enforcement and

Investigations (LEI), Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

My name is Bill Wasley, and I am the Director of the Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) program. Thank you for the opportunity to appear

before you today to discuss eco-terrorism acts on Forest Service facilities and how

the Agency is addressing employee safety.

The Forest Service manages approximately 192 million acres of land in the United

States. Protecting people and natural resources is part of our mission. This mission

has become more difficult over the years as crimes occurring on national forests and

to federal property have increased, especially criminal acts against research projects

and government facilities. LEI is responsible for protecting and serving the public

and agency employees; protecting natural resources and other property under the

jurisdiction of the Forest Service; and cooperating with other law enforcement

agencies.

Escalation of Incidents

Over the past 10 years, destructive civil disobedience and destructive criminal

acts have increased, damaging resources and placing people in harm’s way. Destructive criminal acts have primarily been related to protests against commercial logging activity on National Forest System (NFS) lands. These acts have included the

illegal occupation of NFS lands and roads that place protestors at great risk; spiking

trees designated for cutting; damaging or destroying natural resources, public roads,

and facilities; damaging private property; and threatening and interfering with timber sale purchasers and timber operators. Since 1998, the Earth Liberation Front

94

(ELF) has claimed responsibility for at least five such acts to Forest Service resources, facilities, or vehicles.

Forest Service research programs have also been the targets of recent criminal

acts. The Agency has an extensive research and development program that conducts

basic and applied research on an array of subjects that complement the diverse mission of the Agency, including research on biological pathogens or forest genetics. In

fiscal year 2000, two acts of vandalism resulted in damages to the Forest Service

Research facilities in Minnesota and Wisconsin, estimated at over $1.3 million. Over

850 pine and broadleaf trees, and saplings from ‘‘superior’’ tree stock and cross-pollination research were cut down, ring-barked and trampled. ELF claimed responsibility for this act. In November of 2001, two explosive arson devices were planted

near university and Forest Service research buildings at Michigan Technical University, but fortunately were located by security personnel prior to detonation. No

one has yet been charged with this crime.

Prevention is critical to the Agency’s action plan against destructive criminal acts.

Currently, the Forest Service is conducting facility security assessments to identify

those facilities that are vulnerable. These assessments will address employee,

facility, asset, transportation, special use permitting, and resource protection concerns.

Safety in the Workplace

Since the mid 1990’s, the number of threats and attacks on Forest Service

employees have increased. Examples of these attacks include the bombing of an

employee’s residence and the complete destruction by arson of two Forest Service

offices. These attacks have raised fears and concern among Agency employees for

their personal safety. The Agency is addressing these concerns by securing government facilities; producing and distributing safety pamphlets, brochures, and videos;

holding safety meetings; providing information to employees on steps that are being

implemented to improve employee security; and providing violence awareness training. The Forest Service has an agreement with the Office of Inspector General (OIG)

regarding investigations dealing with employee safety. The safety of Agency

employees and the public on Forest Service lands is the top priority for the Forest

Service.

Efforts to Ensure Coordinated Security

In cases of domestic terrorism the FBI has primary jurisdiction. LEI assist the

FBI by serving on the joint task force investigating domestic terrorism acts.

Agency law enforcement officers and criminal investigators coordinate closely with

line and staff officers to provide and implement security procedures for Forest

Service facilities, resources, employees, and the public. Security measures undertaken by LEI include: conducting threat assessments; providing personnel and

facility security details during protests or high risk events, providing first responders to incidents; responding to protest and civil disobedience activities; investigating

criminal acts; conducting search and rescues; responding to shooting incidents and

drug and alcohol possession and use problems; and responding and investigating all

reported instances of intimidation, threat, or assault against agency employees.

In investigating criminal acts, LEI has developed many cooperative agreements

with other Federal, State, and local agencies for performance of routine law enforcement patrols, drug enforcement, timber theft investigations, and coordination of

other enforcement activities. LEI participate in many task forces, particularly the

FBI’s counterterrorism taskforce mentioned above and the Office of National Drug

Control Policy’s (ONDCP) High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program.

Conclusion

The Forest Service is committed to work with the FBI to combat acts of domestic

terrorism. We also are committed to ensuring safety and security of the public and

our employees. The job is immense, but we will continue to work at providing these

services and expend resources consistent with this priority.

This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any questions you or

Members of the Subcommittee might have.

Mr. MCINNIS. All right. Ms. Flora.

95

STATEMENT OF GLORIA FLORA, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ms. FLORA. Thank you, Chairman, members of the Committee.

Thank you.

My name is Gloria Flora, and I have had a 22-1/2 year public

service career working for the U.S. Forest Service. I’ve occupied a

number of positions including forest supervisor at the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest in Nevada, and the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana.

I resigned from the Forest Service in 2000 to call attention to

what we are terming here today as lawlessness, specifically harassment and intimidation of Federal employees. I have now started a

nonprofit organization called Sustainable Obtainable Solutions,

that is dedicated to ensuring sustainability of public land from the

communities that depend upon them.

I’m here today testifying on behalf of PEER, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. PEER is a national service

organization for scientists, land managers and law enforcement officers working on our state and Federal Public Lands. And speaking on behalf of the organization, PEER condemns any form of

terrorism, as do I personally.

I wanted to start today—and I will be as brief as possible—with

a quote from Aldo Leopold. Aldo Leopold said, ‘‘There are two

things that interest me. That is the relationship of people to each

other and people to their lands.’’ I ascribe to that myself.

And my concern is what I have come to call ‘‘Fed-bashing.’’ You

can call it whatever you want, County Supremacy, Sagebrush Rebellion, States’ Rights, Home Rule. When it comes to harassment

and intimidation of employees, these are the organizations that I

have seen be the most vigorous and relentless.

And the examples of this range from incivility to outright hostility. It is like eco-terrorism in the extent that there is a disregard

for law, a disregard for property, and a disregard for the health

and safety of citizens and Federal land managers.

How it differs is that these activities are not taking place in the

dark of night by anonymous people. These are in broad daylight

often by public figures or well-known individuals in communities

who actually take pride in the harassment and intimidation of

Federal employees. And there is little public outcry in many cases.

The discrimination that I have seen over the years extends not

just to employees, but also to their families. We have harassment

by law enforcement officials, local law enforcement officials. We

have people who have been refused service in restaurants and gas

stations and motels. People who have been treated very uncivilly

in other places of business and commerce. We have children who

have been castigated in their schools because of what their parents

do, i.e., work for the Forest Service. There has also been systematic

exclusion and public denigration at social events in communities.

There have been veiled threats and not-so-veiled threats of violence

and of destruction of Government property. There have also been

bombings, as we have photographs here. Not only was the office at

the Carson Ranger District bombed, but also the District Ranger’s

personal home was bombed, his wife and children narrowly escaping injury.

96

And how do Forest Service line managers react? Well, so far,

much of the reaction has been advising people not to wear their

uniforms; do not drive Government vehicles that are the obvious

green color of the Forest Service; do not go out in the field alone,

particularly women, women in the field alone have been threatened

with rape; to hide or run away if approached by an armed civilian

such as several of my employees had to do when they returned to

their vehicle at the end of a day of work, and there were armed

citizens going through their vehicles, searching for what we don’t

know. We have asked them not to attempt to stop destructive acts,

merely take notes and leave the scene as quickly as possible. And

the U.S. Attorney has actually advised the employees of Nevada to

not issue any tickets, even tickets for people not paying campground fees if the person makes any anti-Federal comments.

I have a list of reasons why I think some of this is happening,

and I also have some solutions, but I see the yellow light is on, and

if you are interested in discussing those when we conclude the testimony of Dr. Pendleton, I will be here.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Flora follows:]

Statement of Gloria Flora, on behalf of Public Employees for

Environmental Responsibility

To spread their message and inflate their importance, ‘‘eco-terrorism’’ groups must

command a prominent public stage. Unfortunately, this subcommittee hearing is

aiding these so-called eco-terrorists by giving them the United States Congress as

a forum.

This craving for attention is illustrated in a recent self-promoting report on the

exploits of eco-terrorists that seeks to magnify the number and impact of their activities. This hearing serves the media agenda of these groups by assigning a greater importance to their role and by attempting to falsely suggest that they are a

major force on the vast public lands within the National Forest System.

If you ask Forest Service employees to rank the problems they must confront

daily, ‘‘eco-terrorism’’ would not even make the chart. I know because for over 22

years, I was a Forest Service employee and have worked in national forests throughout the West.

My name is Gloria Flora and, in my career in public service, I have occupied

many positions including Forest Supervisor on the Lewis and Clark National Forest

in north-central Montana and on the Humboldt–Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada

and eastern California. I resigned from the Forest Service in 2000 specifically to call

attention to the far greater threat of harassment, intimidation and lawlessness that

haunts Forest Service employees. I have started a non-profit organization, Sustainable Obtainable Solutions, dedicated to ensuring sustainability of public lands and

the communities that depend on them.

I am here today testifying on behalf of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility or PEER. PEER is a national service organization for the scientists,

land managers and law enforcement officers working on our state and federal public

lands. Speaking on behalf of the organization, PEER condemns terrorism in any

form as do I.

There is a problem of lawlessness facing Forest Service employees and the citizens

who visit, work within or live near national forests—but it has little to do with ecoterrorism. This afternoon I would like to discuss the nature and extent of these challenges, outline the causative factors and conclude with steps we all need to take together toward solutions.

Conflicts over public land management continue to escalate and challenge even

the most innovative land stewards and community members. When values collide,

the first casualty is the ability to communicate our views with civility and respect.

Sometimes, and with a seemingly growing frequency, violence, or threats thereof results.

Federal agents across the West deal with hostile, even dangerous working conditions fanned by the flames of anti-government sentiment.

Each winter, California’s Imperial Valley swarms with off road vehicle riders on

long holiday weekends. As Bureau of Land Management agents struggle to mitigate

97

the environmental damage caused by thousands of vehicles, more and more, they

are forced to protect themselves from the ever-increasing incidents of violence

against their ranks. In recent years, rangers have been attacked by mobs, run down

by vehicles and assaulted with weapons by off-roaders yelling anti-government epithets.

This past Thanksgiving a record crowd of 200,000 off-roaders descended on the

desert wilderness. By the end of the weekend, BLM agents had dealt with two

deaths, 220 medical emergencies, 50 arrests, nearly one thousand citations, several

shootings, and one ranger run over by an angry 3-wheeler.

As reported in the New York Times on January 2nd, Forest Service managers

voiced doubts about the safety of sending their own law enforcement personnel into

certain areas of these public lands because the danger is too extreme. Internal

agency memos describe the situation as near-riot conditions.

Federal agents are often targets because it is their job to enforce environmental

policies. In the California desert, some off-roaders resent federal decisions to close

portions of the desert to vehicle use to allow the land to recover and protect the

habitat of the threatened desert tortoise. As I have witnessed in other parts of the

country, some people extend their anger about federal policy into violence against

federal employees.

While this annual chaos in the California desert is a dramatic example, it is certainly not an isolated case. According to agency records collected and tabulated by

PEER, beatings, shootings, threats and other incidents of violence against federal

resource managers, primarily in the West, rose sharply in 2000, and have risen in

all but one year since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

Overall, attacks aimed at U.S. Forest Service employees and facilities rose by

more than 20% in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics. Incidents at

Fish & Wildlife Service rose by half, while incidents at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rose by a third. For all three agencies combined, serious incidents rose

by nearly a third in 2000.

PEER assembles these numbers because the U.S. Department of Justice has yet

to implement statutory requirements that it compile and report on attacks against

government workers. PEER has established its own database on violence against

federal resource agency employees using the Freedom of Information Act to collect

incident reports.

These numbers, however, do not begin to tell the story. Employees have reported

to PEER many incidents not reflected in the official counts. The agencies have no

incentive to aggressively monitor employees’ working conditions. To some large extent, agencies often reflect a ‘‘no news is good news’’ attitude with regard to these

incidents. As a result, PEER believes that the official numbers significantly understate the true number of events.

Moreover, the bare numbers do not convey the impact even one incident can have

on affected employees, agency operations and public perceptions. Take one case: Guy

Pence who, until his transfer, was district ranger of the Carson District on the

Toiyabe National Forest (before it was combined with the Humboldt National

98

Forest), which includes Nye County, Nevada, the heart of the anti-environmental

‘‘wise use’’ movement.

A Forest Service employee since he graduated college more than 25 years ago,

Pence started working on the Toiyabe in 1984, and he developed a reputation as

a no-nonsense manager. He suspended or canceled the permits of grazers, loggers

and miners who violated permit conditions and environmental laws. One of the

users Pence cited for violation was Dick Carver, a Nye County commissioner, private rancher and an outspoken ‘‘wise use’’ leader. Carver gained national attention

(including the cover photo of Time magazine) in the mid–90s when he drove a bulldozer towards Forest Service rangers in an attempt to open a road that had been

closed by the agency. This act added to an already alarming level of tension surrounding public land management issues in Nevada.

A few weeks before the tragedy in Oklahoma City, a bomb exploded at the Carson

City ranger station. Fortunately, no one was in the office at the time. The bomb was

set outside Guy Pence’s office sending a clear signal as to who was the target. No

suspects were ever arrested, and no group claimed responsibility.

In August 1995 a bomb exploded under Pence’s personal vehicle, which was

parked in his driveway. Miraculously, no one was hurt. The blast destroyed the family van and blew out the front windows of the Pence home. Luckily, Pence’s wife

and daughters had just left the living room. Again, no arrests were ever made and

the case remains unsolved.

The Forest Service transferred Guy Pence to its Boise office where his new duties

include aviation, fire, and law enforcement. The Forest Service says Pence’s transfer

was not a demotion, and it maintains that it did not move Pence out of fear. Most

people, however, can read between the lines.

Since Pence’s transfer, the Boise office has been evacuated several times due to

bomb threats. And the employees on the Carson District still fear another attack.

They implemented security measures that are now commonplace for protection from

terrorist attack.

No matter where they are or how far they go, neither Pence, nor his family, will

ever be able to forget what happened in Nevada. While Pence admits that the safety

issue looms large, he is much more concerned about his family’s safety than his

own. He is worried more about the effect the move to Idaho has had on his wife

and three daughters. His wife had to give up her teaching job, and his daughters,

who grew up in Carson City, have lost life-long friendships. Pence said, ‘‘The bombings really made us take stock of our life. Things that seemed routine or normal

now seem so fragile and more precious than ever. Actions are so interconnected and

their impact can ripple out to affect everyone involved.’’ The legacy of the Guy Pence was still very much alive when I became the Supervisor of the now-combined Humboldt–Toiyabe National Forest in 1998. By the end

of 1999, I resigned my position as Forest Supervisor in protest of the pervasive and

escalating intimidation and harassment of Forest Service employees. Let me be

clear that I did not allege that there were prosecutable threats of direct violence

that were being ignored. In the previous 18 months, there were none of which I was

aware. Rather it was the insidious and increasing acts of hostilities, fueled by media

sensationalism, private vendettas and political posturing which made life extremely

difficult for many Forest Service employees and their families—24 hours a day, 7

days a week.

Instead, the legacy of the previous incidents contributed to something almost

more insidious: a syndrome I came to call ‘‘Fed-bashing.’’ Fed-bashing is a tough

phrase. I define it as destructive actions or words meant to hurt and belittle federal

employees, personally and/or collectively. It is not much different than racism. You

pick a class of people, you decide they are the source of your problems and you proceed to systematically make them unwelcome in your community.

I do not begrudge anyone for being upset with certain federal laws or policies but

how we handle that dislike is measure of our own personal integrity and ultimately,

the yardstick of a community. Because I resent a tax, I do not have the right to

personally vilify the tax collector or members of his family.

Some say that I over-reacted. In an atmosphere of hostility, how do you decide

when your employees are truly at risk? How do you calculate how many insults, personal attacks in the media, refusal of service in public establishments, are ‘‘acceptable’’ and how many equal a precursor to violence? When actively hostile citizens

threaten to break the law using ‘‘Remember Waco’’ as a rallying cry and the local

sheriff, the FBI and the Justice Department warn you and your employees to stay

100 miles away instead of doing your job... is that the warning salvo that violence

is just around the corner? The last time someone ‘‘remembered Waco’’ in a very visible manner, over 180 people lost their lives in Oklahoma City. None of them reported a ‘‘prosecutable threat’’ prior to losing their lives.

99

My point is simple. More than overt acts of violence should be of concern. When

frustrations grow and dialogue becomes uncivil, nasty and personally demeaning toward individuals of a certain group of people, an unsavory element is attracted to

the fray, like sharks to the smell of blood. There are far too many boastful threats

about armed insurrection and civil uprising in the rural West to be sanguine about

this situation.

Perhaps my biggest frustration was the behavior of many public officials at all

levels who either turn their backs or openly condone such behavior. In response to

my expressed concerns about the treatment of my employees and their families in

Nevada, a member of Congress, casually quipped, ‘‘You’re federal employees: What

do you expect?’’ This phenomenon of elected officials egging on the tensions is certainly not confined to Nevada. Recently, an elected official in Montana likened a Forest Service

manager to a Nazi for not openly opposing the roadless initiative.

To evoke the image of fascism and compare it to contemporary public land management in America is at best delusional and, at worst, a disgrace to the memories

of those who suffered unimaginable terror at the hands of the Nazi regime. Try to

convince the relatives of millions of people who lost their lives that the situations

that we face in the rural West are comparable.

To my knowledge, all elected officials, as well as Forest Service employees sign

an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. That

oath should not be taken lightly. Those who wish to selectively support the laws,

that is, only the ones that please them personally, should recognize that they are

violating their oath of office and are doing a disservice to the public.

No matter how disturbing, these events are only the symptoms of deeper causes.

Federal resource employees are targeted because of conflicts surrounding those resources. While the acreage within the National Forest System is vast, the natural

resources contained within it are finite.

In many places, public lands are degraded: non-functioning, denuded riparian

areas, dropping water tables, degraded water quality, sediment in streams, excessive fuel build-up, loss of biodiversity, and species heading towards extinction confront us. There are still hundreds of abandoned mines leaking acidic water with a

pH of 2 and poisoning ground water, despite billions of dollars spent on clean up.

Look at the cattle industry on public land, for example. Public land grazing is a

struggling industry that produces less than 4% of the nation’s beef supply. In many

areas, the public range can no longer sustain traditional levels of grazing. Plant species are lost, riparian areas shrink. When the lands suffer from overgrazing, people

get alarmed and demand that basic stewardship be enforced. The Forest Service reevaluates the allotment management plan and reduces allowable numbers in some

places. The result is that the range con and district ranger are cast as villains attacking custom and culture. Wrong. What is the real story?

The real story is economic and social. The market for beef does not keep pace with

inflation, production costs rise, and middlemen profit while price on-the-hoof plummets. Trade policies loosen. Cheap, subsidized beef from other countries flood the

borders. People have grown concerned about their health; they no longer trust

chemicals, they want less fat in their diet. Although they buy significantly less red

meat, they are willing to pay more for chemical free, low-fat beef. In reality, these

changes in public taste, market forces and international trade agreements affect

ranchers’ livelihood far more than the laws of Congress or Forest Service policies.

Some ranchers understand that the Forest Service is not the enemy. Rather than

attacking the Forest Service, ranchers figure out how they can use the research capabilities of the government and universities to help determine better techniques to

graze cattle, improving weight gain while maintaining habitat diversity. They

switch to lower fat breeds, and stop using chemicals. They find a niche market for

the product in demand, sell directly to the retailer and get twice the price. These

folks work with the agencies and organizations to develop a certification program

for beef raised in environmentally sustainable methods, creating a cache for concerned consumers and higher demand. They sell a conservation easement on the

ranch and keep it in the family. They thrive, the community thrives and so do their

cattle and the wildlife.

By contrast, some of their neighbors try a different approach. These ranchers

make sure everyone in the community knows what ‘‘those Forest Service bastards’’

have done to them. They violate the commitments they signed off on in their grazing

permit, overgraze the land and their cattle do not thrive. They mortgage the ranch

to sue the Forest Service based on what they believe is a constitutional right to run

as many cattle as they want, wherever they want on public land, because their

grandfather did. They refuse to change. They lose the suit and the ranch is subdivided. They suffer and the community suffers. Whose fault is it?

100

When seeking the roots of complex natural resource problems, I find it worthwhile

to step back and look at the larger context. This often helps us to understand why

we are where we find ourselves. We must look at local and regional history, social

trends, and environmental changes, while examining the national and global trends

that affect us.

Looking at the social situation in the rural west, the operative word here is

change. Life as we know it has changed dramatically and the pace continues to accelerate with every new technological development. Even during the recent period

of broad national economic prosperity, there are plenty of pockets within the rural

west with lots of folks still struggling to get by. The ‘‘have’s’’ are getting richer while

the ‘‘have not’s’’ see their buying power and political influence waning.

A shift in demographics is also evident; geography for many is no longer essential

to job. Many people can work anywhere, and you know exactly the places they want

to live’’ where the air is cleaner, and the mountains tower majestically over their

new home in the last, best place. Indeed local culture is changing: name a town that

does not have at least one place to buy espresso.

The population is shifting and growing. This requires a greater degree of tolerance

and sharing; a greater degree of tempering individual demands for the sake of community. This means getting along with others by working out equitable solutions

for sharing public resources.

History is replete with examples of civilizations having to share or lose their ‘‘traditional’’ uses. It has only been a little more than 100 years since this society appropriated all resources from the First Americans. Now, a century later, we are again

thrusting massive change upon the western landscape, its people and what our culture considers ‘‘traditional use’’ communities. There is much to value in these hardworking decent communities and much we can do to ensure these communities continue to be viable.

Any conservation plan or policy for public lands that does not consider the economic health of both the rural communities of the intermountain west and struggling tribal nations is woefully inadequate. It is not too much to ask for the world’s wealthiest nation to have a sound economic transition strategy when we change the

way we value and manage the resources on public land. We cannot throw people

out of work with just a shrug and a brief apology. However neither can citizens expect that their chosen way of life is an inherent right that all others must protect

regardless of the consequences.

Life has never been easy for those who choose to make their living off the land.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of the population depended directly on natural resources for their livelihood. Since the Industrial Revolution,

labor related to natural resources has been steadily declining. Now basic extractive

industries account for less than 5% of our gross national product.

This shift means that life keeps getting tougher for those who want to continue

to make their living off the land while contesting the changes that society mandates.

This shift is just as inevitable as the massive societal transformation of the industrial revolution, the invention of the computer and introduction of mass communication. We have accelerated the rate of change—change that is inevitable.

It is not my intention to be harsh or cavalier. I have worked in small communities

for over twenty years; I know how badly these dislocations can hurt. It is how we

manage that change is critical for both the rural communities in the West and the

surrounding landscapes. We, as a nation, cannot consume and waste, populate and

communicate at this rate and expect that the rural west will be just like it was

when we were growing up. There is no going back.

So, what are the solutions? Civil discourse is step one. There is no bogeyman out

there. We are all in this together, like it or not. Respectful civil dialogue is an essential tool in establishing and reaching long-term goals for the preservation of our nation’s natural treasures. In my opinion, this approach is essential in convincing the

American public that an investment in the health of their children’s inheritance is

wise—a sound fiscal strategy. Such an investment in restoration and natural wealth

accumulation will also bring a sustainable prosperity to the communities previously

dependent solely on extraction.

The time is right for the nation and especially the Intermountain West to adopt

a new strategy in the management of public lands through civil discourse because

the alternative is a widening chasm between the majority of Americans and a

shrinking but steadily more extreme collection of groups fighting to maintain a fading status quo of resource extraction at the expense of clean water, productive soil

and vibrant wildlife.

I recently read that a Montanan proclaimed that ‘‘we, the people, will decide’’

what uses will be permitted in a heated protest against the roadless initiative. He

promised armed conflict and bloodshed if uses were restricted. He is right on the

101

first item, the people will decide. And most of you know that ‘‘We, the People...’’ are the first words in the Constitution. It applies to all Americans. All the Americans

who have been paying for the care and maintenance of the national forests, and subsidizing every use for more than 100 years will decide what we leave for the future.

We are facing predicaments that can only be resolved by civil discourse. Through

a series of events, natural and social, we are trying to make the land do more than

it is capable of in terms of supporting us for the next hundred years.

Clearly one of the least effective ways of seeking resolution is to vilify the federal

employees who are stewards of this land we all share. What sense does it make to

shoot the messengers?

The second essential step is to end the Fed-bashing. Public officials at all levels

need to provide moral and political support for the district ranger, field biologist,

range conservationists and other professional struggling to faithfully execute the

law and serve the public in trying circumstances.

Politicians must resist the natural urge to ‘‘pile on’’ when the mob demands ‘‘heads should roll.’’ We need more rare acts of courage when public officials are willing to stake their own careers on telling people what is right when it is not popular.

We need more leaders willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with embattled public

servants, to let them know they are not alone and that someone in the public they

serve appreciates the struggle.

In my Forest Service career I met too few real leaders. In Nevada, when my staff

really needed support from higher-ups in state and federal government, there was

precious little. I resigned to draw attention to that lack of support and, in that I

succeeded.

What concerns me is what happens the next time? Will lessons have been

learned? Are my successors in the Forest Service doomed to walk the same path,

share the same frustrations and meet the same fate? I see signs and fervently hope

that collaborative solutions are emerging not just on the Humboldt–Toiyabe but on

the other challenging resource faults lines in national forests throughout the West.

The final step is to look to the future. We cannot lose sight of our responsibility

to leave a quality environment for the future. The superfund sites and abandoned

mines that we spend billions on to stabilize and prevent further damage are perfect

examples of waiting until the damage is done to face the issue—and then shifting

the higher cost to the taxpayer and the legacy of pollution to our children.

I do not mean to over-simplify, there are fundamental problems that even the

hardest-working folks cannot easily overcome. One is the lack of market incentives

to help transition to sustainable methods in industries. Shifting from dependence

on non-renewable energy sources is one area that shows promise: fuel cell technology and solar advancements are emerging methods of providing energy, while reducing demand for a non-renewable resources, reducing air pollution and ultimately

global warming, as well as providing jobs that can be located in rural areas. Organic

agricultural products reduce ground and water pollution, bring higher prices and

can be an economical small business in rural areas. There are many deteriorated

landscapes and areas of poor forest health. Restoration using the equipment and

skills of forest workers is a very viable idea that needs an influx of money and a

change of perspective.

A paradigm shift is required in the political leadership of the rural West. In making decisions, local leaders need to take natural capital, i.e., the real dollar value

or replacement value for the goods and services that we get from the land, into account. The cost of restoring degraded landscapes frequently far exceeds the value

of what has been extracted. But, a plan for managing public land as a long-term

trust, ensuring we are living off the interest and not depleting the capital, is possible only with the willing, civil participation of all interested parties.

We need to be willing to collaborate on solutions rather than wanting to overpower and win. Freedom to share and hear all viewpoints was clearly seen by the

crafters of the Constitution as an imperative. We need to accept the fact that we

do not know everything. There is a golden opportunity to learn from our neighbors

and for us to share with them our experience and knowledge. The bottom line is

showing respect and civility towards others despite what you think about their opinion or in how they express their relationship with their landscape.

I suggest that our personal relationship with the land is an excellent barometer

of how we relate to other people. I believe there are different levels of maturity in

land relationships. A child-like attitude may lead one to take the land and its resources for granted, as if it will always be there and it will meet all of your needs.

A mature attitude recognizes that you are much more transient than the land. With

maturity comes the understanding that you must give and sacrifice for the sake of

the relationship. What you take must be returned and never take more than you

absolutely need for the sake of those who come after you.

102

Solutions are tough. We need to recognize that no one is going to win it all. But

I remind you, this is not about winning, it is about finding balance through sustainable practices. We are in this for the long-run.

Demeaning each other will not bring about solutions, nor will it suggest to the

rest of the nation that we in the West are thoughtful, reflective, inclusive individuals; people who can be trusted to make good choices and therefore deserve greater

local control. If we can demonstrate to the rest of the nation that we collectively

are far-sighted, cooperative stewards, we will gain the support of the rest of the nation in our efforts to reach sustainable solutions to our considerable natural resource challenges...civilly.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. FLORA. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Pendleton, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ROY PENDLETON, Ph.D.,

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Mr. PENDLETON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Committee

members, for inviting me here today.

My name is Michael Pendleton, and I’m representing my work as

a social scientist while at the University of Washington, specifically

my published research on forest crime, enforcement and timber

theft.

But my testimony also reflects my experience as a grandson of

a northwest logger, whose small logging business was bankrupted

by strategic vandalism of his equipment, and also my service as a

police officer in Oregon, where the importance of real enforcement

was made apparent. This is my testimony.

The hundreds of hours I have spent in patrol trucks with forest

enforcement officers strongly indicate that public policy should reflect a broader understanding of crime and terrorism in our national forests. It isn’t that your concern with eco-terrorism is

wrong, rather it’s incomplete. What I know and every on-theground forest office will tell you, the majority of property crime and

violent acts are committed by a relatively small but known group

of local residents that subscribe to a twisted view of wisdom and

use. Events such as the drive-by shooting of a staffed ranger station, where the offenders emptied their automatic weapons only to

stop and reload for a second pass, was explained upon arrest as

their answer to Federal management of forest and park land. This

is but one of many examples of blown gates, car bombings and arsons, where land management employees and Federal property

were the clear targets of violence. The examples I cite are not, however, the work of eco-terrorists, but crimes committed to serve as

a radical right agenda to take over national lands from Federal

management and the American people. I would submit such a view

is at least as worthy of a policy response as the one advanced by

eco-terrorists.

In spite of these well-known cases of domestic terrorism, little

has been done to address these concerns. In fact, in the wake of

the Oklahoma bombings Federal legislators actually advanced legislation to disarm Forest Service law enforcement officers. These

are the same law enforcement officers who consistently encounter

known local offenders who are armed, with astonishing criminal

records.

103

While the $40 million of damage attributed to eco-terrorist

groups such as the Earth Liberation Front is clearly unacceptable

and should be addressed, it pales in comparison to the $100 million

annual estimates attributed to timber theft from national forests.

Yet in spite of this chronic and well-documented property crime, efforts to address the loss by enforcement officers have been overtly

stopped.

The disbandment of the Forest Service Timber Theft Investigations Branch in 1995 is perhaps the most visible effort to stifle

meaningful enforcement. But others exist as well, such as the systematic dismissal of large timber theft cases, and the recent Presidential pardon of a convicted timber theft offender. These are clear

messages.

Ongoing efforts to defeat effective enforcement against timber

theft occur as an outcome of a conventional view that timber theft

is nothing but a folk crime committed by basically good people.

Such a view empowers organizational practices that encourage officers to look the other way, or face organizational pressures to conform or get out. When combined with poorly equipped and funded

enforcement programs, these practices effectively discourage meaningful pursuit of these criminals.

The effect of systematically ignoring timber theft has been to create an uneven playing field in the timber industry for those who

choose to play within the rules. More importantly, to ignore timber

theft worth millions of dollars each year is as morally wrong as

looking the other way while a corporation fixes to price of electricity, but also steals its employees’ retirement. In both cases, future sustainability for the many is sacrificed for the greedy few. It

is clear that meaningful policy to address terrorism and crime is

long overdue in America’s forests. The core of this effort should be

built on a policy of blind justice. This policy would require the full

enforcement of the law against all who offend, regardless of where

on the political spectrum they might shop for their justification.

Specifically, terrorists who offend in the name of environmental

protection, or terrorists who offend in the name of the wise use

movement, should be found and brought to justice. Those who steal

trees should be treated in the same way as those who destroy property. They are both crimes. And those who do these things are

criminals.

Anything short of a policy of blind justice will be a policy that

is based upon a distorted view of crime in our Nation’s forests. At

its worst such a policy will reveal biases it serves, and further undermines Americans’ respect for the rule of law and their commitment to doing the right thing.

I urge you to adopt and fully fund a policy of blind justice in our

Nation’s forests.

And I thank you for myself and on behalf of many law enforcement officers for addressing this important issue.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pendleton follows:]

Statement of Michael Roy Pendleton Ph.D., Representing My Role as a

Social Scientist and the Research I conducted While a Professor at the

University of Washington

Thank you Mr. Chairman and committee members for inviting me here today. My

name is Michael Pendleton and I am representing my work as a social scientist

104

while at the University of Washington, and specifically my published research on

forest based crime, enforcement, lawlessness and timber theft. I would like to add,

however, that my testimony also reflects my experience as the grandson of a legendary North West Logger, whose small logging business was bankrupted by strategic vandalism of his equipment, and my service as a working police officer in the

State of Oregon where the importance of real enforcement were made apparent.

This is my testimony.

The hundreds of hours that I have spent in patrol trucks with land management

enforcement officers strongly indicates that public policy on these matters would be

greatly enhanced were we to broaden our understanding of crime and terrorism in

our national forests. It isn’t that your concern with ‘‘eco-terrorism’’ is wrong. Rather,

it is incomplete. What I know and every ‘‘on the ground’’ forest officer will tell you

is that the vast majority of property crime and violent acts are committed not by

‘‘eco-terrorist’’, but by a relatively small but known group of local residents that subscribe to a twisted view of wisdom and use. The drive-by shooting of a ranger station where the offenders emptied their automatic weapons only to stop and reload

for a second pass was explained by the offenders, upon arrest, as their answer to

federal management of forest and parklands. In effect those inside the ranger station nearly gave their lives for performing their jobs. The drive-by shooting is but

one among many examples of blown gates, car bombings and arsons where land

management employees and federal property are the clear targets of violence. The

examples I cite are not, however, the work of eco-terrorists but crimes committed

to service a radical right philosophy that clearly advances the ‘‘take over’’ of national

lands from federal management and the American people. I would submit that such

a view is at least as worthy of a public policy response as the one advanced by ecoterrorists.

In spite of these well known, and documented cases of domestic terrorism, little

has been done to address these concerns. In fact, in the wake of the Oklahoma

bombings, federal legislators actually advanced legislation to disarm land management officers to include Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers. In my article concerning crime, criminals and guns in these settings, I point out the nonsensical nature of this proposed policy. Documented crime in these settings has been escalating

since 1990. During my research, 255 known offenders were identified of which 85%

lived in close proximity to the National Forest under study. Forest Law Enforcement

Officers, on average, contacted at least one individual during their daily patrol that

was visibly armed. Of all the people encountered during this research by Forest Law

Enforcement Officers, 37% were visibly armed. Criminal history research on weapons offenders encountered in natural settings reveal an astonishing profile where,

on average, these offenders have 7.8 prior offenses of which half were felonies. One

individual in this research accounted for 48 prior offenses. To actually suggest disarming Law Enforcement Officers in the face of this reality sent a strong message

to those charged with land management.

Other, very strong signals have been sent to Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers to suggest that addressing forest crime in a meaningful way will not be rewarded. While the $40 million dollars of damage attributed to eco-terrorist groups

such as the Earth Liberation Front is clearly unacceptable and should be addressed,

it pales in comparison to the $100 million dollar annual loss attributed to timber

theft from National Forests. Yet in spite of this chronic and well documented property crime, efforts to address this loss by Forest Service Enforcement Officers have

been overtly stopped. The disbandment of the Forest Service Timber Theft Investigations Branch in 1995, and the retaliation against its whistle blowers, was perhaps the most visible effort to stifle meaningful enforcement. But others exist as

well such as the systematic dismissal of large timber theft cases, and the recent

presidential pardon of a convicted timber theft offender.

Even more profound efforts to limit a law enforcement response to timber theft

occur as part of a complicated system of internal Forest Service practices based on

the view that timber theft is nothing but a folk crime committed by basically good

people. Such a view empowers organizational practices that encourage officers to

‘‘look the other way’’ or face real organizational pressures to conform or get out. Law

enforcement officers consistently pointed to such practices as a 10% over-cut provision in timber sale contracts, known monetary thresholds of $50 thousand dollars

below which there would be no follow-up investigation by central office investigators, and fatal flaws in the handling of cases submitted to law enforcement officers

thus preventing prosecution. When combined with poorly equipped and funded enforcement programs these operational practices effectively discouraged meaningful

pursuit of timber thieves.

The effect of systematically ignoring timber theft has been to create an uneven

playing field in the timber industry for those that choose to play within the rules.

105

More importantly to systematically ignore the theft of trees worth millions of dollars

each year is as blatantly wrong and immoral as looking the other way while a corporation fix’s the price of electricity as it is also stealing its employee’s retirement.

In both cases greed promises to bankrupt the future lives of those to follow. If there

is doubt about this, all one has to do is compare the impact of unsustained forests

on a displaced logger, with the views of a 59 ° year old Enron employee.

Based upon my research and experience it seems clear to me that meaningful policy to address the full range of crime, terrorism and lawlessness is long overdue in

America’s forests. The first step is to empower and fully fund meaningful law enforcement in the National Forests. The core of this effort should be built around the

policy of ‘‘blind justice’’. This policy would simply require the full and effective enforcement of the law against ALL who choose to offend regardless of where on the

political spectrum one might shop for their justification. Specifically, terrorists who

offend in the name of the environmental protection or terrorist who offend in the

name of the wise use movement should be found and prosecuted to the fullest.

Criminals who steal trees should be treated in the same way as those criminals who

destroy property. They are both crimes and those who do those things are criminals.

Anything short of the policy of blind justice will reveal a policy that is at a minimum based upon a distorted view of crime and lawlessness in our nations forests.

It follows that these distortions will promote irrelevant means to manage the full

array of crime that exists, often vilifying some to the exclusion of others. At its

worst, anything short of a policy of blind justice will lay transparent the bias’s it

serves and further undermine Americans respect and confidence in the rule of law

and the commitment to doing the right thing. I urge you to adopt and fully fund

a policy of ‘‘blind justice’’ in our nations forests.

In support of my testimony I have requested that three of my articles be placed

in the record. These articles are entitled:

1. ‘‘Crime, Criminals and Guns in Natural Settings: Exploring the Basis for Disarming Federal Rangers’’, American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4, 1996.

2. ‘‘Looking the Other Way: The Institutional Accommodation of Tree Theft’’,

Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1997.

3. ‘‘Taking the Forest: The Shared Meaning of Tree Theft’’, Society and Natural

Resources, Vol. 11, 1998.

Thank you for your attention to this most important issue.

NOTE: The following documents have been retained in the Committee’s official

files.

• ′′Crime, Criminals and Guns in Natural Settings: Exploring the Basis for Disarming Federal Rangers′′, American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4, 1996;

• ′′Looking the Other Way: The Institutional Accommodation of Tree Theft′′, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1997; and

• ′′Taking the Forest: The Shared Meaning of Tree Theft′′, Society and Natural

Resources, Vol. 11, 1998.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Pendleton.

Well, our hearing has covered a broad area from tobacco to

Enron, but the focus of course is the forests.

Let me ask you, Mr. Pendleton, I am a little confused. When you

talk about timber theft, are you also inferring or concluding within

that definition a contract that you think is below cost, or tell me

what you mean by it. I see timber theft, somebody pulling chain

saw up and cutting down timber and putting it on timber trucks

and hauling it off. Are we talking about the same thing on timber

theft?

Mr. PENDLETON. Well, actually, in my article ‘‘Taking the Forest:

The Shared Meaning of Timber Theft,’’ based on my data, came up

with a spectrum of types of timber theft. And I’m sure those in the

Forest Service that are here could probably elaborate on that. But

basically I found three types, the kind that’s affiliated with legitimate timber sale, and that’s where boundaries are expanded, but

within a contract, trees are taken beyond what is allowed. The second kind is where they come in and set up a logging show and take

106

trees out of an area where there is no timber sale, just come in and

take them, but they— Mr. MCINNIS. How do they get away with that?

Mr. PENDLETON. Well, I can give you a specific case that we

found. They come in, and they set it up, and they log the trees, and

they leave.

Mr. MCINNIS. And the third?

Mr. PENDLETON. Yeah.

Mr. MCINNIS. No, I mean, and the third?

Mr. PENDLETON. And the third is what I term tree poaching.

This is when individuals go out, take trees, typically high-value

trees, cedar trees on the Olympic where we did most of our research. They’ll high-grade them. They’ll take the first 40 feet of

those trees, usually—or more, whatever they can get. Those type

of offenders can range from somebody who’s wanting to buy a new

pickup to folks that are supporting a drug addict, and I have case

samples of both.

Mr. MCINNIS. And I have no tolerance for timber theft, and I just

wanted to get the information. I might say to you that you said

they looked the other way. I assume you are talking about the

Federal employees?

Mr. PENDLETON. In my— Mr. MCINNIS. You say ‘‘looked the other way.’’ There are Federal

employees that look the other way, or am I confused?

Mr. PENDLETON. No, you’re not confused.

Mr. MCINNIS. I might add that if that is true, then Ms. Flora

might say that is kind of an aggressive act of Federal employees,

accusing them of looking the other way. I mean are you suggesting

the Forest Service intentionally looks the other way when somebody sets up a logging operation they are not entitled to do, and

starts logging the forest?

Mr. PENDLETON. No. Actually, I will use the case of the middle

ground. This is a Littleton crime, that it was called. It actually

happened on the Olympic National Forest. There was an unwritten, as I’m told doing my research, agreement or understanding that any theft below $50,000 would not be investigated.

Mr. MCINNIS. That is what you have been told, but you haven’t

seen policy or the forest supervisor hasn’t told you that?

Mr. PENDLETON. There was no written policy on that, they made

certain.

Mr. MCINNIS. And I will be honest with you. Some of the complaints that I hear from some of our forest people are these kind

of accusations. Those people, and Ms. Flora, I agree with you, I

think that would be one of the toughest jobs in the world, working

Forest Service in my area.

By the way, I know of no one that, at least that I run around

with, that is—won’t just put their kids in school, I mean they still

have a lot of respect. But they are constantly attacked from both

sides, the environmental groups that are more activist don’t think

that they are doing enough. The other groups don’t think they are

doing enough. I think we have to be real careful about what somebody told you was the unwritten policy of the Forest Service. The

people I deal with at the Forest Service try and stick by the book.

They use a little common sense, which I am glad to see, but they

107

appear to me to stick by the book pretty well, and they are very

professional employees.

Ms. Flora, let me ask a couple of questions. If in fact what you

are saying is occurring—and I don’t doubt that it is; I am just not

aware of it—one of the obligations, I think of a Federal employee— now, remember we have police officers by the tens of thousands

that take abuse every time they write a ticket. I used to be a cop.

Mr. Pendleton used to be a cop. And I would have people call me

names in the book and everything, that they were not speeding, et

cetera, et cetera. That is part of the job. I mean you have got to

put up with some of that. These people are angry. You are citing

them, so you are going to have a certain amount of what you might

call harassment. But the more serious stuff that you mentioned in

your comments, some of the incidents that you came up with, for

us to do something about it, I certainly encourage the Forest

Service employees in my district, let us know about it. Give us specific times, incidents and who the individuals are who are involved,

because I hear this from you, but in my 10 years representing one

of the largest districts in the United States, and one of the largest

districts with forest and Government land, I have yet to even have

an entry-level Federal employee come to me and make some of

these allegations. So I would certainly encourage specific information, because we shouldn’t tolerate it. Go ahead.

Ms. FLORA. Thank you. You know, it’s extremely unfortunate— and I am not coming here at all with the intent to castigate Members of Congress or politicians, but what I found in my experience

in the State of Nevada, and I’m not going to extrapolate, although

I’ve heard lots of hearsay from other rural areas, in Nevada it was

largely elected officials at the State, local, and indeed the Federal

level, who were encouraging this kind of behavior by statements

they made.

I certainly agree with you, as all Forest Service people do, yes,

you will come across angry citizens who want to vent at you, and

that is part of the job, and that’s OK, as long as it doesn’t get personal, and as long as it is not accompanied by threats. And yet, in

the instance of the—of Nevada, when I brought to the attention of

one of our congressional representatives the extent of the abuse in

the media, of calling of—well, for instance, a letter published in the

local newspaper that said, ‘‘Kill the Fed Nazis before they murder

your wife and children.’’ I said that was an inappropriate remark.

And he said, ‘‘In the media, what do you expect? You’re Federal

employees.’’

Likewise, I could go on with a list of comments made by a lieutenant Governor, ‘‘God bless these people. I’m behind them 100 percent,’’ when there was destructive acts proposed and indeed carried

out by a county commission. A county commission gives their county road crew leader, not only the authorization, but the direction

to plow up 900 feet of river that has the last southernmost population of bull trout in it, that to me is an act of eco-terrorism, and

yet it was committed by a public official who bragged about it.

Mr. MCINNIS. Well, I should tell you that public officials have no

immunity, and I can tell you that I can open the news—and I am

not called a Nazi, because the papers don’t print that, and I am

surprised the paper printed the remark as you said. But you have

108

got to have a certain amount of tough skin when you are public

service. I mean, we face—there is not a day that I—probably 120

newspapers, not a day that I don’t get some of what I consider

abuse, but that goes with the territory.

But there is a line upon which they cross that it is inappropriate,

and I think the Nevada incidents that you mentioned cross that

line.

Ms. FLORA. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. But I do want to point out that in my area, and

I think through most of the country, the Forest Service, our Wildlife officer—and our Wildlife officer writes tickets to people, the

ones I am thinking of, and people tell him ‘‘Thanks’’ on the way

out. I mean most of our communities have a lot of respect in the

Federal employees, the Forest Service, BLM and fit in. That is not

to say we don’t disagree. I wrote my own forest plan because I disagreed with one, but we did it professionally.

So I appreciate you coming here today and making that testimony, and I will turn it over to Mr. Inslee.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Flora, on behalf of all the Forest Service personnel, I want

to thank you for your service and all Forest Service personnel. It

is a very tough job for a lot of different reasons. We pass the laws,

and you are on the firing line on implementing, very difficult.

I read in your written testimony about Guy Pence, I believe a

predecessor of yours in the forest where you worked, whose personal vehicle was bombed apparently. And was a suspicion that

that was people who objected to his enforcing various environmental provisions, although I understand there was never any

prosecution.

What can we do, in your view, what is the best thing that Congress ought to think about doing to help people have greater confidence, Forest Service personnel, where the rubber meets the road.

What is the best we can do to help you have confidence to deal with

that kind of threat and others?

Ms. FLORA. Well, there is a number of things. One, and I’m sorry

to harp on this, but it was a significant problem for me, and that

is that as elected public officials, that you support the laws that are

passed by Congress instead of attacking them or encouraging others to attack them.

Second, support for Federal employees. Many of the comments

that have been made at this hearing are music to my ears in terms

of appreciating the hard work and the dedication of Federal

employees, particularly in the Forest Service and other land management agencies. I think that providing as much support as possible for the law enforcement entity associated with Federal land

management is extremely important. We have very few law enforcement officers on the ground, despite being—despite public

claims again by elected officials that we have armed employees on

every acre, I can tell you that I had one employee authorized to

carry a gun, and he covered an area that was roughly from Raleigh, North Carolina to Philadelphia over to Pittsburgh, one person.

I think that emphasizing and supporting community efforts at

collaboration and consensus would be extremely important. We love

109

to have that kind of support, because we find that when individuals

do have a chance to get together in a room, get to know each other

personally, that it is very hard to continue the vicious name calling

that goes on when the person is only a name and not a face.

And I think that we need to ensure that all activities that take

place on public lands are indeed sustainable activities, activities

that are not bankrupting the natural capital of our public lands.

We tend to look at things very strictly from the economic standpoint, but we often fail to consider the environmental and social

costs that are attendant to those activities further down the line.

Those would be good starters.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I thank you. That is a tall order. We will start

at the beginning.

Mr. Wasley, I was looking at some statistics that seem to indicate from ’95 to the year 2000 the number of criminal incidents

have gone up dramatically, and the numbers I am looking at are

about 144,000 in ’96, up to 285,000 in the year 2000, a pretty significant increase. And yet I am told that the number of full-time

equivalents in law enforcement since ’95 has basically been frozen

in the Forest Service. Is that the situation out there?

Mr. WASLEY. That’s pretty much the situation. I would say that

in 1996 when I took over the job, I had to redo the computer system, so I can’t verify the statistics beforehand, so I can’t verify that

in fact there was such a quantum leap from 145,000 to 280,000. I

will tell you that there has been a significant increase in the number of incidents. But I would like to clarify also that an incident

is not necessarily a criminal incident. An incident could be a traffic

accident. It could be a search and rescue. It could be anything that

happens, anything that triggers a law enforcement investigation involvement in that action.

Mr. INSLEE. Right. I was looking at—the investigations appear to

have almost actually more than doubled from ’95 to ’99. It seems

like we are stretching law enforcement in the forest pretty thin. Is

that a fair assessment?

Mr. WASLEY. I think that’s a very fair assessment. If you look at

the numerical strength, we probably have one officer for every 650

square miles, and now we are down to something like 125 special

agents. 75 or so are actually field going agents. But we are spread

thin.

Mr. INSLEE. Dr. Pendleton, in your view, what is the most important thing on the timber theft issue? Is it to make it a more serious

crime or to have better investigatory resources? You are probably

going to answer both, but—

Mr. PENDLETON. Well, I think that having the investigatory resources is very important, but I think also creating incentives for

that not to occur. Business incentives, this is a regulatory environment, and a lot of the theft that occurs, occurs around affiliated

timber sale.

The most expensive decision you can make is to arrest somebody.

It’s expensive. And we’re working in a regulatory environment and

not just a criminal environment here. And I think the policy and

the law needs to be sensitive to the distinctions between the two.

But those that are blatantly stealing trees, then I think you do

two things. You first of all keep them from purchasing timber a

110

second time, and the data that I was presented is that currently

that does not exist.

And finally, those that persist, and particularly those poachers,

I think that they deserve a criminal experience, because that’s

what they are.

I think the resources to the agency and a policy commitment go

a long way toward beginning to address these issues.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.AFTER 6 P.M.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wasley, I am tempted to ask you if the revenue from timber

sales has decreased significantly over the last few years, and consequently the revenue that goes through the Forest Service that

supports the law enforcement efforts, but I am not going to ask

that, so don’t answer.

I do appreciate your testimony, all of you, and I want you to

know that whether these acts of violence or terrorism come from

the right or the left or any other place, we need to fight them, and

those people need to go to jail.

And I understand what you are talking about, Ms. Flora. I have

seen some of those things happen, as an example, with the

Roadless policy when they closed—not the Roadless policy—when

they closed roads in the Targe National Forest due to grizzly bear

habitat. People up there were very upset. They went in and bulldozed the roads, made some tank traps and a few things like that.

No public comment, no input. And consequently, there was a lack

of communication between the Forest Service and the community

about what they were doing and why they were doing it. And consequently, when that type of thing happens, you get some upset

people. And they did some inappropriate things. Normal, every day

citizens that would not have done it under circumstances I think

had appropriate communication between the community and the

Forest Service existed. So when you say collaborative efforts and

community support, I think that is a big key into trying to get

some of these things solved.

But one of the things that you mentioned, Mr. Pendleton, I believe you said the radical right trying to take over management of

our Federal lands. I guess you are aware that there is a legitimate

debate going on in Congress, in the West where most of those public lands are, about the new type of land management, using local

input and collaborative efforts. Mr. Kemmis, the former mayor of

Missoula, has written a book called ‘‘The Sovereign Land’’, talking

about the need for more local input and so forth and for actually

local management people that have some attachment to the land,

to help manage these things and draw up management plans. And

that is a legitimate debate that ought to be going on. So when we

talk about local communities and states and stuff trying to take

over management of Federal lands, I hope you don’t include the legitimate efforts as radical right trying to take over management of

Federal lands.

Mr. PENDLETON. No. My frame of reference is really around the

crimes that were committed and those kinds of activities.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that. You stated that efforts to address

timber theft, which quite frankly, I have never—I am glad to hear

111

this—not glad to hear it, but I had never really heard that it goes

on that much. But you have stated that efforts to address timber

theft by Forest Service law enforcement officers have been overtly

stopped. You cite as an example the disbandment of the Forest

Service Timber Theft Investigations branch in 1995. As I understand it, this task force was established to be a 3-year task force

to make recommendations to the Forest Service. They submitted

the report. Many of the recommendations, as I understand it, have

been implemented, including a training model for law enforcement

officers, and group coordination between law enforcement and land

managers, and a data base linked for GIS for tracking incidents.

How does the establishment of task force and the implementation of the recommendations equate to overtly stopping enforcement against timber theft?

Mr. PENDLETON. The disbandment of this task force?

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

Mr. PENDLETON. Because it has eliminated an outside entity

from coming in and examining these issues and pushing forward

with an investigation without the burden of local pressure.

What we have found, what is consistently reported, that it is not

the culture in the Forest Service or in these communities to encourage meaningful investigation and enforcement of timber theft law.

Mr. SIMPSON. Are you suggesting then that the recommendations

of the task force, after their 3 years of study and input, that the

recommendations are not being implemented by the Forest Service?

Mr. PENDLETON. I don’t have any information about that. I’m

sorry.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I thank you. And I do thank you for your testimony, and I want you to know that if there are things going on,

I don’t care who they are from, right, left, in between, up or down,

we need to know about it because I am willing to take whatever

action is necessary to try and stop that. I know that some of—not

some of—our public employees, quite frankly, are our greatest

asset. Sure there are times when some of them get out of hand.

There are some times when actually congressmen get out of hand.

But I do appreciate your efforts and look forward to working with

you to try to address some of these problems, because it ought to

be a safe environment for our Forest Service, BLM people and others to work in.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to the witnesses for your testimony.

Dr. Pendleton, I think I heard you say that you are estimating

$100 million in timber theft. Did you say that?

Mr. PENDLETON. I used that figure that—the range has been between 10 million and 100 million over quite an extended period of

time. The fact of the matter is that we have no solid data on this.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. And you also indicated there has been some

dismissal of timber theft cases and a pardon of timber thief or

thieves? Did I hear you right?

Mr. PENDLETON. Yes. It seems that President Clinton pardoned

a person that had been convicted of, or been involved and I guess

convicted of timber theft or some involvement therein. I use that

because I don’t believe that the Federal enforcement employees are

112

encouraged, and when they see something like that, it discourages

them.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I appreciate that. I think that was wrong to

do that. And we shouldn’t. I agree with my colleagues that this is

serious, whether it is right or left, that criminal acts ought to be

prosecuted.

I am on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Wasley, and the Interior Subcommittee that deals with the Forest Service and the

funding for the Forest Service. Are you aware what the budget request might be for this year in terms of prosecuting timber theft

or other actions as Dr. Pendleton has testified to?

Mr. WASLEY. To my knowledge, there is no specific budgetary request for such prosecutions.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Is it adequate in your current budget for you

to pursue the timber theft cases as you would want to, or is the

funding inadequate in your budget for that purpose?

Mr. WASLEY. Well, I deal with the budget as given to me. We

have competing priorities. We don’t just do, as you well know, just

timber theft. We do Archaeological Resource Protection Act violations. We do cannabis suppression. We have a whole range of stuff.

So we make do with what we get.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I understand, and it is never enough, I know,

in some of these agencies.

Dr. Pendleton, I want to ask you another question about

terrorism. Is it your—we have had testimony here today about ecoterrorism and agroterrorism and so forth, acts that were identified

as terrorism by the FBI agent who testified.

Is it your judgment that the timber theft problem fits the definition of terrorism that has been used here today as it relates to ALF

and ELF and others that we have discussed?

Mr. PENDLETON. No, no.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. It does not?

Mr. PENDLETON. No. I was asked to come here to talk to you

about my research around timber theft, but no.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I understand. Let me ask Ms. Flora. If you in

your experience with the Forest Service, with government service,

or you, Mr. Wasley as well, have experienced or had any of your

people experience the consequences of tree spiking or other

terrorist acts in the forest, as they have been discussed today? Does

that affect your people?

Ms. FLORA. I’m not sure I understand the question.

Mr. WASLEY. Well, I think I can answer some of that. It inspires

me to proceed more vigorously for those people who perpetrate such

acts. I’m a policeman, and that’s what I get paid to do is lock the

people up.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Yes, sir. Let me ask you, if you could, Mr.

Wasley, to rank the top four criminal activities investigated on U.S.

Forest Service lands?

Mr. WASLEY. Far and away, the most significant financial impact

would be from cannabis or marijuana production. Arson, well, then

arson certainly is huge, especially given last year’s terrible, terrible

fires. And then it goes down from there. Timber theft is up there.

I would take some disagreement or have some disagreement with

some of the colleagues here on thwarted efforts. I have never been

113

thwarted in any investigation in my 34 years of service, ever. And

woe be unto somebody that tries to thwart me in a criminal investigation.

But criminal timber theft is—mostly for us is firewood theft. It

is dealt with by citation. Don’t forget also the timber harvest of the

Forest Service is down dramatically. Hence the amount of theft on

large contracts is going to go down proportionately.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I some of that theft, Dr. Pendleton, or the exceeding of the boundaries of a timber sale, due at all to a diseased

forest? In other words, my understanding is you are going to—if

you are going to harvest a diseased forest, you have got to go beyond the boundaries in order to stop the beetle infestation, for example. Are you referencing in terms of your exceeding of boundaries of timber sales, or does that include it or is it something different?

It seems to me that that would be a legitimate harvest of tress

that would be approved by the Forest Service, so I wouldn’t think

that that would be tree theft. I think that the definition of tree

theft is when trees are taken that is not authorized, in the context

of a sale or some kind of an environmental issue or whatever it

would be.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank you all. Thank you especially for your

University of Washington connection, and we are glad you are

here. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Wasley, I need to do a couple quick follow ups

to clarify something. To be honest, before I heard Mr. Pendleton’s

testimony, and I was pretty surprised by the number he gave us,

I was trying to think of timber theft. I think I can understand

somebody going outside the boundaries, whether there is intent or

not, but the only thing I can really think of that I have ever seen

is firewood, where they use firewood, and you have clarified that.

And I want to clarify these statements, because these statements

go on the record. Mr. Pendleton has said—and I quote from his

statement. ‘‘Such few empowers organizational practices that encourage officers to look the other way.’’ In your law enforcement

practice with the Forest Service, have you ever investigated a case

of an officer looking the other way, or a Forest Service employee

looking the other way?

Mr. WASLEY. No. If I found one, I would fire him immediately.

Mr. MCINNIS. Have you ever fired anybody immediately for looking the other way?

Mr. WASLEY. No.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you.

And finally, Mr. Pendleton, I am very concerned about your

statement, based on the question that you just gave to Mr.

Nethercutt. Your statement says, and I would like you to clarify it,

because I think it is important, and I am quoting exactly: ‘‘It pales

in comparison to the $100 million annual loss attributed to timber

theft from the national forest.’’ Now, that is the number, when I was listening to you, and you

go through for—I was a little stunned by that number. I am trying to figure out who sets up an operation and steals $100 million.

Now, in response to Mr. Nethercutt’s question, you said that there

is no data kept in regard to that, that over a long period of time

114

it could range from 10 to $100 million. Now, I am not sure which

is accurate, whether your last statement is accurate or your first.

I don’t want you submitting a statement here alleging $100 million

theft if in fact you don’t have the data to support that.

Could you clarify that for me?

Mr. PENDLETON. Sure, I’d be happy to. What I said exactly is it pales in comparison to the $100 million annual estimates— Mr. MCINNIS. It says ‘‘annual loss.’’ It doesn’t say ‘‘estimate.’’ I

am reading your statement right here in front of me.

Mr. PENDLETON. Well, OK.

Mr. MCINNIS. Loss attributed, $100 million annual loss. This is

your statement on page 3, about three-fourths of the way down. I

am not trying to put you on the spot. I am just trying to say— Mr. PENDLETON. No, I’m— Mr. MCINNIS. $100 million a year.

Mr. PENDLETON. That’s a lot of money.

Mr. MCINNIS. You are darn right it is a lot of money. And I want

to know—but you said there wasn’t data that could support that

number.

Mr. PENDLETON. What I’m repeating is a figure that’s been used

over a period of years, that— Mr. MCINNIS. OK. So it is a number, that as the earlier one you

said—

Mr. PENDLETON. Well, actually I think— Mr. MCINNIS. Let me clarify. You said earlier in your statement,

you clarified for me that in fact you had heard that it was an

unspoken policy of the Forest Service to look the other way. Now

you are clarifying further in your statement that this is a number

that you have heard around the communities— Mr. PENDLETON. No, I didn’t say I heard it around the communities, sir. This number was actually in congressional testimony by

a former head of the Forest Service, Mr. Robinson, gave that exact

estimate. I believe it was in 1992. It’s a number that’s been repeated.

Mr. MCINNIS. This says annually. Do you have hard data? And

I am not trying to harangue you. Mr. Pendleton, let me ask you

this. Do you have hard data that supports $100 million a year timber theft from the national forests?

Mr. PENDLETON. I do not.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you.

Mr. Inslee, you can do some follow up, and then we will wrap it

up.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I have heard that number, and the

source of that is the congressional research service report to Congress entitled ‘‘Forest Service Timber Sale Practices and Procedures Analysis of Alternative Systems’’, which said, as I read it,

stolen timber could be worth as much as $100 million a year. I

mean is that the source of the information?

Mr. PENDLETON. It is, but it has been repeated in other settings

as well. I mean, I think that probably the important policy question

is here, why is it we don’t have an accurate number? Because I

think that one of the issues that we certainly confronted when we

were doing our research was that the data collection system in the

Forest Service was woefully inadequate.

115

Mr. INSLEE. I have a question just to the whole panel, and if Mr.

Nethercutt could help us too, I would appreciate it. Mr. Nethercutt

has proposed some legislation, and I am wondering if any of you

have looked to see to what extent it may help in reducing the occurrence of the crimes we have talked about here, either assaults

on personnel, or timber theft, or bombing of Federal offices by folks

who are against environmental protection. Do you know, would Mr.

Nethercutt’s legislation help in any of those regards? I am happy

to hear from anyone on that.

Mr. WASLEY. I, unfortunately, only got the legislation last night.

I haven’t had a chance to review it in depth, but I will say that

anything that provides for information sharing and two-way flow of

information, not just into some black hole that would never get out

again, I would say would definitely be of value.

Ms. FLORA. I’d certainly concur with that. Any action that can

curb uncivilized, hostile, violent behavior is excellent. The problem

that still faces us are these unprosecutable threats and harassment

and intimidation. I don’t know that there is a legislative answer to

that. There is a social behavioral answer to it, but I don’t know

that one can legislate civility.

Mr. PENDLETON. I have not had a chance to see the legislation,

but I do know that just the fact that this hearing has occurred and

legislation is proposed, will go a long way to send a message to the

people in the Forest Service that in fact there is a strong interest

in these issues, and that’s a good thing.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Nethercutt, could you help us on that? Would

your legislation apply to these types of crimes?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. It may, Mr. Inslee, because it would provide

information, and it would provide research assistance in terms of

preventing agroterrorism. The reason I asked Dr. Pendleton the

question about whether a timber theft rises to the level of

terrorism as identified by the FBI, was—I was trying to ascertain

whether his concern about timber theft and other activities that he

is testifying about would come under the definition. And I am not

so sure it would under the definition of terrorism, because there

has got to be some political purpose and long-term strategy to accomplish it.

But my sense is—and I would be happy to work with you, amend

your legislation, to make sure that the FBI has a chance to get the

timber thieves or any kind of activity that is illegal that is within

their jurisdiction in order to prevent it.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, perhaps we can talk about that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee, I just want to clarify that the CRS report that you have, the beginning of the sentence or the beginning

of the paragraph that you extrapolated from starts with, ‘‘The extent of theft is unknown.’’

Second of all, Ms. Flora, I am trying to remember the organization—but on an unrelated matter, but a matter that is related to

this Committee, we are going to have the lynx hearings coming up,

and I think—we had some biologists who have admitted planting

lynx here and so on. And I took that issue on, as did a number of

my colleagues, and I believe there was a press release of an organization that accused me then of breaking the law because I quesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
116

tioned the biologists. I am not sure if that is your organization or

not.

But let me clarify one thing. I think it is important that—because there were a number of references made about elected officials, I don’t think any elected official or any individual has a right

to be derogatory in the sense of a verbal assault, but I think it is

our responsibility to question Federal employees if we think that

a policy is incorrect, if we think a Federal employee has misbehaved. I mean we get questioned every day. But I want to make

sure that there is clarification here that we in Congress, just like

Mr. Wasley has an obligation to question actions of their employees

as kind of the check and balance there.

Anyway, I would invite you to that hearing next week.

I want to thank the panel very much for your cooperation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman— Mr. MCINNIS. We had better wrap it up here. Yes?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. May I just ask one quick follow-up question

that went to Mr. Inslee’s question?

Mr. MCINNIS. Yes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Wasley, is there any good starting point

in the Forest Service for information collection as it relates to theft

or exceedences on timber sales or any of that? Is there any mechanism or system in place that we might start from in order to address this problem as well as the eco-terrorism problem that we are

so concerned about?

Mr. WASLEY. That is a complex question, and I am not going to

try to beg it, but I think we would do better to discuss it with our

timber management folks and get you a written answer on it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Yes, sir. No, that is fine. We are going to look

at it in Interior Appropriations and funding of programs. So it

might be something we might want to think through and address.

But thanks so much.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to

present Representative Acevido-Vila ́’s statement and a statement

from the Klamath Tribes regarding some incidents. And one more

that I am looking for. A statement from Robert Elde, Dean of College of Biological Sciences from the University of Minnesota. Thank

you.

Mr. MCINNIS. No objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo-Vila ́ follows:]

Statement of The Hon. Anibal Acevedo-Vila ́, Resident Commisioner from

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

I thank Chairman McInnis, Ranking Member Inslee, the witnesses here today,

and my colleagues for focusing on eco-terrorism and lawlessness on the National

Forests. My district plays host to the Caribbean National Forest (CNF), a 28,000-

acre treasure that is the only tropical forest in the U.S. National Forest System.

While the CNF (commonly known as El Yunque) provides a unique and lasting experience to its visitors and plays an important role in our National Forest System

and for the environment of Puerto Rico, it is far from immune to lawlessness and

eco-terror.

Over the past 50 years, visitations to the CNF have continued to escalate. More

than 850,000 people visit the CNF annually and over half of these visitors are from

the 50 states. Additionally, there is an increasing human population living within

the urban interface between municipalities CNF lands. These factors have created

an almost insurmountable challenge when faced with having to provide protection

117

1 These numbers are based upon a 1997 U.S. Marshall Service survey.

and safety of visitors and Forest Service employees, compliance with regulations

and protection of Government property and National Forest resources.

Today there are two full time Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) and one full time

resident supervisor expected to cover a 28,000-acre area that receives intense visitation and must be protected and patrolled on a 24-hour basis. The CNF LEOs not

only have to combat crimes against persons, they also enforce regulations and laws

relating to forest product theft, destruction of Government property, sanitation, encroachments, closure orders, traffic, occupancy and use, off road vehicles, and regulations for developed and undeveloped recreation areas.

The fact that we are here today focusing on eco-terror and lawlessness on National Forest Lands shows that this problem is clearly not unique to the Caribbean

National Forest. This issue has become a national problem. Staff levels that once

proved capable of deterring crimes associated with National Forest System lands

are no longer sufficient.

The National Forest System has more acreage and visitations than the National

Park System (NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) combined. Reported

criminal activity is significantly higher on National Forest System lands too, yet

there are some six times the number of LEOs serving under the NPS and USFWS

than serving under the FS. Furthermore, each FS LEO is responsible for patrolling

an average area of 591 square miles, while an NPS LEO patrols an average area

of 56 square miles and an USFWS LEO patrols an average area of 151 square

miles.1

In fiscal year 2001, there were 751 reports of criminal activity in the CNF, 244

warning notices issued, and 413 documented incidents left unresolved. Many of

these crimes are considered serious and violent. To exemplify the lawlessness and

eco terrorism in the CNF, I have listed below some recent examples of the crimes

we face in El Yunque. They include:

• February 1, 2002 - Forest visitors were robbed at gunpoint while visiting the

Big Tree Trail. A stolen Lexus vehicle occupied by three suspects was identified

as responsible for the incidents. After a chase involving FS Law Enforcement

and Investigations personnel, two suspects were apprehended and the Lexus vehicle was recovered.

• November / December, 2001 - Two illegal alcohol production facilities that were

operated on FS lands were found and destroyed.

• July 2001 - Two forest visitors were victims of a car jacking on Hwy. 191. Their

vehicle was stolen at gunpoint by two suspects.

• Forest visitors were robbed at gunpoint while they were parked at the Las

Cabezas overlook. Credit cards, cash, and other belongings were stolen.

• April 2001 - Endangered Puerto Rican Parrots stolen. USFWS Parrot aviary is

burglarized. Suspects removed 2 endangered Puerto Rican Parrots and 8 Dominican Parrots. The case is still under investigation by USFWS and FS.

• Stream Poisoning and Illegal Shrimp Harvesting on the Caribbean National

Forest - The Caribbean National Forest currently does not allow fishing in the

Forest. Yet, illegal shrimp harvesting has been an on-going issue on the CNF

for many years. One method of illegal shrimp harvesting is adding chemicals

streams which cuts off the source of oxygen, causing the shrimp to rise to the

surface where they are then caught in nets. The illegal use of chemicals such

as bleach and pesticides has been increasing over the years.

• Recently, a man with a criminal record was detained by citizens who found him

within the Caribbean National Forest using a dangerous pesticide known as

cypermethrin which can affect the central nervous system of humans and is

highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates.

• During the last year the number of official and unofficial reports of these incidents have been increasing considerably. Within a one-month period, five incidents were reported. Lack of specialized law enforcement personnel in the Forest make the detection of these violations difficult.

Mr. Chairman, these examples represent only a few of the recent crimes committed in the CNF. I believe this committee must work to provide adequate resources to our law enforcement personnel in the Forest Service. Too much is at

stake to let these problems go unchecked. The Forest Supervisor in the CNF, Mr.

Pablo Cruz, has made clear that he and the LEOs face incredible challenges with

very limited resources. We, as Members of this Subcommittee should focus on authorization legislation that will provide adequate and necessary resources to the

Forest Service to protect both the visitors and the cherished natural resources of

these important lands.

118

I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to find necessary and lasting

relief to the problems caused by lawlessness and eco-terrorism in the National Forest System.

[The statement of Mr. Elde submitted for the record follows:]

Statement of Robert Elde, Dean, College of Biological Sciences,

University of Minnesota

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on a recent eco-terrorism

incident at the University of Minnesota.

On Tuesday, January 28, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility

for a fire set at the construction site of the University of Minnesota Microbial and

Plant Genomics Building early on the morning of Saturday, January 26. The fire

was started with incendiary devices placed in a construction trailer, a bulldozer, and

other equipment. It spread from the construction trailer to the Crops Research

Building, where it destroyed a soil testing laboratory not related to genomics research. Preliminary cost estimates of the damage were $250,000, but that is expected to be much higher after costs of lost research are calculated.

Also damaged were important laboratory instruments related to plant breeding

and a large amount of graduate thesis research, much of it irreplaceable.

Fortunately, there were no deaths or injuries, but there could have been. It is not

uncommon for faculty or graduate students to work in labs after hours on evenings

and weekends. Moreover, the site is adjacent to a fuel tank. If the fire had spread

to the tank, there could have been a huge explosion with massive damage and loss

of life. This incident goes far beyond malicious mischief or vandalism. It is, in fact,

domestic terrorism.

In issuing a communique ́ taking credit for this terrorist act, ELF disclosed information that only someone with first-hand knowledge of the arson would know, lending credibility to its claims of involvement.

This is not the first time ELF has struck here at the University of Minnesota.

Two years ago, the group attempted to ‘‘free the seed’’ by setting fire to a greenhouse which destroyed projects involving genetically altered oats.

Perhaps most disturbing is that the ELF’s actions were based on inadequate information. The group targeted our building because they believe our research is harmful to the environment; in fact, the opposite is true. The purpose of our genomics

program is to understand how genomes enable and perpetuate all life on the planet.

This basic research could lead to ways to reduce use of pesticides and fertilizers in

agriculture, find renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, identify new strategies for

cleaning the environment, and preserve ecosystems.

The most critical problems the human race faces are biological. There will be nine

billion people on earth in 50 years. With current practices we cannot provide the

food, clothing, and fuel for this population. Ecosystems will be destroyed by this

growth and the pollution it causes. These problems will be solved by biologists using

biotechnology, not terrorists with matches and inflexible views.

At the College of Biological Sciences, researchers have developed methods for engineering bacteria to consume pesticide spills in soil. And the University is home

to the Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, one of the leading ecology

departments in the United States. These ecologists, who help shape national environmental policy, are interested in working with biotechnologists to find ways to restore ecosystems. They do not support ELF.

Genomics research is being conducted at virtually all public and private research

universities and is supported by the federal government. Universities are the place

where this kind of research should be developed because we can ask the hard questions. The University of Minnesota is a place where all points of view can be expressed. There is no need for terrorism. Ironically, the Microbial and Plant

Genomics facility was designed to provide an open environment for genomics research where everyone and all points of view would be welcome. But as a result of

this incident, we may be forced to secure the building and restrict access.

In fact, the University of Minnesota formally asked the Minnesota state legislature for an emergency appropriation of $4 million to help us increase security at

all our facilities in the wake of September 11. While taxpayers might be better

served in having $4 million invested in the provision of need-based financial aid,

the hiring of top-notch faculty, or the funding of intriguing and beneficial research,

today’s post–September 11 reality is that security is now a top priority. Unfortunately, the ELF terrorism only underscores that need.

119

Ironically, we have never received any communication from ELF inquiring about

our research or asking to speak with us to explain their concerns. It’s curious that

they destroy without asking questions. As scientists and teachers, it is our job to

educate the public about the value of our research. We welcome the opportunity to

educate members of this group and to listen to their views. Instead, they seem only

interested in perpetrating acts of terrorism.

In the letter claiming responsibility for the arson, ELF stated that the Microbial

and Plant Genomics Building was targeted partly because it was funded by Cargill

Corporation. Cargill provided half of the funding; the state of Minnesota provided

the other half. The Cargill gift, which was contingent upon a matching gift from

Minnesota, was designated for construction of a microbial and plant genomics research building. Cargill does not have rights to intellectual property that results

from research conducted in the building.

There is great value in private-public partnerships. Industry and academia need

to work together. Academics are good at identifying approaches to solving problems,

but not delivering the products. Companies deliver the goods. The involvement of

food, chemical, and drug companies is essential.

Cargill–Dow, a spin-off of Cargill, has developed a way to make biodegradable

plastic from corn. They will soon begin manufacturing this material for use in packaging, disposable plates and utensils, fabric, and carpeting. Their slogan is ‘‘Our

goal is to change the world by not changing it at all.’’ Their work will make a far

more meaningful contribution to protecting the environment than ELF will ever

make.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to working with the

committee as you look into this serious threat to academic research.

Mr. MCINNIS. Again, I want to thank all that have been present

here today. It has been a long hearing, but it is an issue that is

very important to all of us.

Thank you very much and have a nice evening.

Mr. MCINNIS. The Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 6:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional materials submitted for the record follow:]

• Conn, P. Michael, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research and

Development, Oregon Regional Primate Research Center,

Oregon Health Sciences University, Letter and statement

submitted for the record

• Kerr, Jeffrey S., General Counsel and Director of Corporate

Affairs, PETA Foundation, Letter submitted for the record

• Nichols, Nick, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NicholsDezenhall Communications Management Group, Statement

submitted for the record

120

Statement by P. Michael Conn, 26 SEPT, 2001 Before the City Council,

Portland, Oregon

Your Honor and Members of the Council:

My name is Dr. Michael Conn. I work as Special Assistant to the President of

Oregon Health and Sciences University and as Associate Director of one of its Institutes, the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center. I also have a research program that has contributed to the development of treatments for breast and prostate

cancer, endometriosis and problems of infertility.

Because of what I have to tell you today, it is important that you understand that

my own research program does not currently use animals, although we have in the

past. Like most Americans, I understand the value of animal research in basic

science—so important for development of treatments for both human and animal

121

disease. Therapies for diabetes, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, cancer, along with antibiotics,

vaccines and surgical techniques—to name just a few things—all had origins in animal research. I have spoken and written about the importance of humane animal

research and how it benefits humans and animals.

Recently, I was invited to visit the University of South Florida, located in Tampa,

Florida. Shortly before this trip, I was alerted that a mid-west activist had announced my visit to Florida on an e-mail listserve. This person, who, I later

learned—and I am quoting here—, ‘‘believes we must be willing to do whatever it

takes to gain animals freedom,’’ even if that means the killing of a so-called ‘‘animal

abuser,’’ solicited letters to the university administration and to my academic colleagues. I also received an email from the educational coordinator of Florida Voices

for Animals detailing my ‘‘ignominy,’’ and telling me that I was unwelcome in

Tampa. I responded, explaining that although I support the humane use of animals

in medical research, I do not, myself, use animals in my research projects.

Let me step out of the sequence of events just for a moment. One of the largest

animal extremist organizations in the world, ‘‘People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals, ‘‘PeTA’’ subsequently picked up on the midwest and Florida postings and

created a page for me on their website, also soliciting e-mails and letters. I learned

that PeTA, which has helped fund one of the mid-west activist’s advertising campaigns, is focusing not on my own work but, on the fact that I work for an institution that conducts animal research. PeTA never mentions, however, that my institution is fully accredited and compliant with all federal and state laws.

Back to the sequence of events: My plane was met at the Tampa airport by animal extremists who tried to engage and film me. Exercising their rights, under a

Florida open meetings law, they were present at virtually all of my scheduled meetings with USF committees. Some stood outside meeting room doors, distributing fliers that made outlandish claims and lobbying attendees. Others, wearing t-shirts

that said, ‘‘keep primate tester Dr. P. M. Conn out of USF,’’ made derogatory comments. Still others asked me why I was lying about using primates in my program— a question that a sympathetic faculty member turned into an accusation, insisting

in obscene language that I was lying about not using animals in my current research program.

In one meeting, news media with video cameras burst into the room. They never

interviewed me, choosing to accept unchallenged the claims made by the extremists

and identifying me simply as a ‘‘vivisector,’’ a term of opprobrium used by extremists.

The campus was plastered with handbills, full of absurdly incorrect information.

There was no way for me to reach out and dialogue with those who were responsible

for this campaign of mis-information. Naively, I did try on one occasion to talk with

one of the extremists, but he showed no interest in meaningful discussion.

I received threatening calls at the hotel and knocks on the door in the middle of

the night. I never knew who was going to be coming through the door of a meeting

room. This put me in a constant state of fear to the degree that, at one point, when

a casually dressed faculty member, whom I did not know, entered from the door behind me, I jumped out of the way in fright, later, apologizing to her.

It got so bad that an armed state police officer was assigned to look after me.

The constant presence of an armed guard made me recognize that I was a ‘‘sitting

duck’’ to anyone with a weapon. At one point, after being accused of telling lies,

cursed at, and in constant fear for my well being—all the while trying to meaningfully address the academic concerns and questions of my USF colleagues—I considered returning home to Portland for reasons of personal safety. Though my nerves

were shot, I decided to remain in this incredibly stressful situation for the planned

two days.

At a little after 4 a.m. on the day of my departure, the police officer met me in

the lobby of the hotel, escorted me to a taxi and followed me for a few miles before

waving goodbye and turning off to another road. I thought it was over, and with

a tremendous sense of relief I checked in and passed through security. Suddenly,

as I was about to step onto an escalator, I became aware that some of the extremists—muttering ‘‘we came to say goodbye,’’ and ‘‘we were afraid we missed you’’ ‘‘had

physically surrounded me. I managed to step aside so that I could descend the escalator several steps behind them. An alert gate agent, noting the message on their

t-shirts, phoned airport police, and I was quickly boarded onto an empty plane.

I was to learn, however, that it still wasn’t over. Now, back in Portland, animal

extremists have shouted at me from the road above at my home, and I have found

that someone has been ransacking my garbage.

All this terrorism is new to me. Remember, I do not work with animals. I work

at a university that does, a university, I remind you, that is fully compliant with

all laws and measures up to the highest standards of animal care.

122

I believe that the events I have recounted were meant ‘‘to terrorize,’’ a verb that

Webster defines as ‘‘to coerce by filling with terror as by the use or threat of violence.’’ But some animal extremists say, ‘‘We do not use violence. We demonstrate

and destroy property, but we never injure or kill persons.’’ What are we to think of that?

Maybe we should ask the four scientists at my institution who received letters

armed with razor blades set to cut the hand of the opener—I think that they would

call that the use of violence.

Maybe we should ask the center administrators who have received anonymous

telephone calls and unsigned mail, and e-mails, which all but threatened them with

death—the callers or writers expressing such wishes as that the scientists soon suffer in hell. Even if these communications carefully stopped short of illegal death

threats, the administrators felt the force of their violence.

Or maybe we should ask the scientist at another University who has been warned

that his children’s pictures would be put up on the internet—hostages, in other

words—until he stops research on animals. Surely he feels this as both a threat and

an experience of violence.

The leaders of the animal extremist movement say that they are non-violent in

the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. They point out

that unlike some of their colleagues in England, who recently took a baseball bat

to the head of a researcher, they haven’t physically assaulted or killed anyone—at

least, not yet.

But that fact doesn’t qualify them as non-violent, or put them in league with Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks. Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks appealed to the

consciences of their adversaries; animal extremists, on the other hand, bully and intimidate. Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks chose to suffer themselves; animal extremists, on the other hand, set out to inflict suffering on us. Gandhi and King allowed themselves to be arrested for their cause, while animal terrorists set fires in

the night, phone anonymously, send unsigned e-mails and post outright lies and

half-truths on their web sites.

A little over one year ago, the FBI found my name and home address written on

a file card in the home of the former national spokesman for the Earth Liberation

Front. Mr. Rosebraugh has been arrested for trespassing at the primate center, publishes a web site on how to make firebombs and distributes a video called ‘‘Igniting

the Revolution,’’ which urges people to burn homes and businesses.

You can be assured that when I learned of the FBI discovery, I felt not just the

threat of violence, but something more, something that violated my person, something that felt very much like violence. Most certainly I was then, as I was in Florida last month, a target of terrorists.

Painful as it is to be in the cross hairs of terrorists, neither my colleagues nor

I will bow to their force or be deflected from our course of discovery that leads to

cures of human and animal disease. I challenged those who taunted me in Florida

to tell the parents of a critically-ill child that research is not important. The only

time these terrorists did not follow me was when I passed through the Cancer ward

at Florida’s Moffitt hospital. Go figure.

I am pleased to answer any questions.

{A letter submitted for the record by Jeffrey S. Kerr, General

Counsel and Director of Corporate Affairs, PETA Foundation,

follows:]

MARCH 14, 2002

The Honorable Scott McInnis

Chairman, House Resources Subcommittee

on Forests and Forest Health

U.S. House of Representatives

320 Cannon Building

Washington DC 20516–0803

Dear Congressman McInnis:

I am general counsel to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA).

Your letter dated March 4, 2002 to PETA’s president, Ingrid Newkirk, has been referred to me for response. PETA appreciates the opportunity to respond to the attempted smear campaign perpetrated by the vested interests opposed to its animal

123

protection efforts. Please note that I submitted written testimony on PETA’s behalf

to the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health relating to the

February 2002 hearing referenced in your letter. Some of your inquiries are addressed by that testimony and I trust my testimony has been made part of the hearing’s public record. I appreciate your pledge to make this letter part of that record.

PETA respects the Congress, the proper use of government for the benefit of the

nation’s citizens, and, most importantly, the fundamental liberties guaranteed by

the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is in that spirit that PETA is pleased to

respond to your inquiries. However, in light of the lies and half-truths that have

been leveled against PETA by industry-funded front groups like the misleadinglynamed Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE), both during the February hearing and afterwards, the public has

a right to a response that places this matter in the proper perspective. Toward this

end, this letter will address your inquiries by discussing the following issues:

1. PETA’s international charitable programs to expose and end animal abuse and

suffering wherever it occurs.

2. The true agenda of CCF, CDFE, and the industries arrayed against the animal

protection and environmental protection movements.

3. The circumstances surrounding the February hearing and the release of your

letter of inquiry.

4. The extent of contributions to your campaign committee by the very industries

opposed to PETA, animal protection and environmental protection, and that

fund the CCF, CDFE, and others in their avowed campaign to destroy environmental and animal activism.

5. PETA’s expenditures in defense of fundamental constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

Due to the timing of your inquiry, this response was prepared during the 6-month

anniversary of the September 11th attacks that took the lives of 3,000 of our fellow

citizens, and changed the lives of all Americans. That anniversary should serve as

a reminder that there is true terrorism afoot and should shame people and groups

using the attacks on our nation as an opportunity to further their own financial and

political goals by using ugly rhetoric to hijack true concerns of their legitimate opponents.

PETA’s Exemplary Charitable Animal Protection Programs

‘‘The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.’’

— JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

Allow me to set the record straight again. PETA does not provide financial or any

other assistance to any person or group for the purpose of so-called terrorist activities. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong, defamatory, and the product

of lobbyists, public relations consultants, and other paid spokespeople for animalexploitive industries.

As explained in my testimony, everything PETA does is public. Unlike its opponents, it does not hide behind front groups with ever-changing names and hidden

agendas. As a 501(c)(3) organization, PETA’s financial records are audited annually

by an independent certified public accounting firm, its annual Form 990 tax returns

are publicly available from the Internal Revenue Service and, in accordance with

applicable law, PETA makes those returns available upon request. PETA also publishes an annual review of its program accomplishments in accordance with all reasonable standards of charity oversight, and makes its audited financial statements

available even though there is no requirement for it to do so.

PETA maintains several web sites that describe in detail each of its campaigns

to expose and end animal abuse, including PETA.org, GoVeg.com, Circuses.com,

CowsAreCool.com, MilkSucks.com, FishingHurts.com, StopAnimalTests.com, and

FurIsDead.com. These sites demonstrate PETA’s true animal protection mission

through the use of hard-hitting public education campaigns, protests, street-theatretype demonstrations with naked activists or activists dressed up as giant rabbits or

chickens to protest their suffering in the meat, leather, fur, entertainment, and animal testing industries.

The following list of recent PETA accomplishments discloses PETA’s effectiveness

in fighting for the animals: • PETA convinced fast-food giants McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s to improve living conditions for the animals provided by their suppliers. These were

immense steps forward that greatly reduce the suffering of billions of animals

raised to become hamburgers and chicken nuggets.

• PETA released details of shocking cruelty to pigs found during an investigation

of the third-largest pig farm in the U.S., Oklahoma’s Seaboard Farms, Inc. One

manager has been charged with four counts of felony animal cruelty—only the

124

second time in U.S. history that a factory farm employee has been charged with

felony animal abuse. (The first time was a PETA case involving a North Carolina pig farm in 2000).

• PETA convinced international retail giants like Nike, Gucci, Eddie Bauer, Nordstrom, Reebok, Kenneth Cole, The GAP, and L.L. Bean to boycott Indian leather

after PETA exposed the immense animal abuse in the Indian leather industry,

including breaking animals’ tails and rubbing hot peppers into their eyes in

order to force them to march long distances to slaughter.

• PETA convinced the U.S. Department of Transportation to stop painful tests in

which corrosive chemicals were poured onto rabbits’ shaved backs, burning holes

into their skin. PETA successfully argued that the D.O.T. should use a modern,

non-animal test that had already been approved by the government.

• PETA convinced Sears, Roebuck & Company to cancel its sponsorship of Ringling Bros. & Barnum and Bailey Circus after explaining Ringling’s deplorable

record of repeatedly violating the federal Animal Welfare Act in which they

have failed to satisfy even minimum standards for the animals beaten and

forced to perform degrading tricks in its tawdry circus.

• PETA saved more than 800,000 animals from painful poisoning tests slated for

the U.S. government’s high production volume (HPV) chemical program designed to test thousands of chemical substances on animals. The government

agreed to replace many of the tests with non-animal methods, delay some of the

tests for two years to allow for the development of non-animal tests, and to dedicate $5 million to fund non-animal methods.

• PETA’s SNIP (Spay and Neuter Immediately Please)-mobile, a new mobile spayneuter clinic serving mostly low-income families, sterilized more than 3,000 animals for those people who could not otherwise afford the procedures and for

shelter cats and dogs prior to adoption.

• PETA staff and dedicated volunteers traveled to one of the country’s poorest

communities in North Carolina to deliver more than 400 doghouses hand-made

by PETA to exacting specifications for animals exposed to the elements at the

city’s rundown animal shelter and for ‘‘backyard dogs’’ huddled under card tables, inside rusting cars, and in mud holes, unable to get away from searing

summer heat and freezing winter cold.

• PETA continues to distribute, free of charge, a kit which helps people transition

to a healthy vegan diet as a critical part of reducing the monumental animal

suffering inflicted on cows, pigs, chickens, fish, and others raised for slaughter

in the animal-food industry.

• PETA has convinced almost 600 companies, including Gillette, Colgate–

Palmolive, Mary Kay, L’Oreal, and many others, to stop testing their products

on animals.

Occasionally, PETA members engage in acts of peaceful civil disobedience in the

greatest traditions of the Boston Tea Party, Harriet Tubman, Mahatma Gandhi,

Susan B. Anthony, Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Indeed, our sacred

Declaration of Independence is a document of peaceful civil disobedience against the

tyranny of the British crown. These acts are undertaken only after animal exploitive

companies and government agencies refuse to end their cruel practices and all other

avenues of discourse are effectively foreclosed.

PETA members may briefly chain themselves to a company or government office

door, or they may interrupt a meeting or fashion show to protest the genital electrocution and neck-snapping of animals raised for fur. They may dump make-believe

‘‘urine’’ (colored water) on the doorstep of Wyeth–Aherst to protest the collection of

urine from constantly impregnated mares for the production of its drug Premarin

and the slaughter of worn-out mares and their offspring when they are no longer

‘‘useful.’’ They may, on occasion, lob a bit of tofu cream pie at a corporate big-wig

who refuses to discuss ending painful animal tests in pursuit of a new shampoo or

mascara. Or they may climb a flag pole to unfurl a banner exposing the cruel beating of elephants and other animals to perform degrading acts in circuses after they

have been ripped away from their mothers.

But by no stretch of the imagination do any of these acts constitute terror or violence. For anyone to suggest otherwise is an insult to the victims of September 11th,

and the suffering and loss borne by their families and our fellow citizens generally

in the wake of those attacks. Stated plainly, it is reprehensible for PETA’s opponents to equate peaceful and lawful animal protection with al–Quaida or any other

type of terrorism, and to exploit that tragedy for expedient political gain.

The True Agenda of Industry–Funded Front Groups CCF and CDFE

‘‘[We have] to shoot the [animal and environmental protection] messenger.’’

— RICHARD BERMAN, CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM

125

‘‘[F]ear, hate, and revenge go a long way.’’

— RON ARNOLD, CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF FREE ENTERPRISE

Unlike PETA’s entirely open charitable mission and programs, those groups and

individuals spreading libelous statements against PETA hide behind industry-funded front groups with ever changing names and hidden agendas. The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), and its lobbyist Richard Berman, and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, with its founder, convicted tax felon Alan Gottlieb and executive director Ron Arnold, are paid mouthpieces of the industries staunchly opposed to even modest animal and environmental protections. CCF and CDFE are

just the latest incarnation of the cunningly named ‘‘Wise Use’’ movement and the

misleadingly-named ‘‘Guest Choice Network.’’ None of the information they ‘‘expose’’

has ever been hidden. Some is made up, some is half-truth, and all that is real (yet

mischaracterized by them) is available in public reports, press accounts, and Internal Revenue Service filings of non-profit organizations.

It is not surprising that CDFE and CCF would attempt to inhibit PETA’s vital

work for animals. These are front groups for loggers, cattle ranchers, tobacco interests, alcohol companies, and factory farmers who writhe when PETA reveals documentation that bulls are castrated without anesthesia and dismembered at slaughterhouses while still conscious, or when we write about yet another scientific study

linking animal fat with cancer and heart disease, or when we attack decades-long

smoking experiments on animals. Alarm bells must have really gone off in their

heads when PETA’s hard-hitting campaigns persuaded McDonald’s, Burger King,

and Wendy’s to make unannounced visits to their slaughterhouses to ensure humane killing and other improvements in animal treatment. These campaigns have

caused a ripple effect throughout the factory-farming industry. Corporations know

they are going to have to change the way they do business in order to adhere to

fast food companies’ new rules. These corporations want nothing more than to maintain the status quo. Indeed, CDFE was formed with the express purpose of opposing

all regulation in business. But they cannot silence the cries of animals suffering at

their hands or the demands for change from the compassionate citizens of this nation.

The following list of facts about CCF and CDFE illuminates their true agendas.

Center for Consumer Freedom

• CCF was founded by Berman, a Washington, D.C. lobbyist who represents the

tobacco industry, alcohol distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Until January 2001, CCF was known as The Guest Choice Network, funded by the Philip

Morris tobacco company to the tune of nearly $1 million.

• In addition to CCF, Berman runs the following organizations out of the same

Washington, D.C. building that houses CCF and his lobbying firm, Berman &

Co.:

* The Employment Policies Institute whose mission is to oppose any increase

in the minimum wage so his restaurant clients can continue to pay their

workers as little as possible.

* The American Beverage Institute which represents restaurants and retailers

that sell alcohol. ABI’s arch enemy is Mothers Against Drunk Driving

(MADD) and it fights all attempts by MADD to reduce the legal blood alcohol

limit for improved driver safety.

• Berman was the protege of Norman Brinker, chairman and CEO of Brinker

International, the founder of the Steak & Ale restaurant chain, and a former

chairman of Burger King.

• Berman also operates ActivistCash.com in which he spreads his industry-funded

campaign of hate against non-profit groups, like PETA. Hypocritically, however,

ActivistCash conceals its own finances from the public, surely because it would

be exposed as the mere front group it is.

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise

• While making defamatory claims about PETA’s entirely open, publicly disclosed

finances, CDFE founder Gottlieb is a convicted tax felon who spent ten months

in a federal prison.

• According to ‘‘The Merchant of Fear,’’ an article for which Gottlieb reportedly

provided some sixteen hours of interviews, Gottlieb and Arnold are closely tied

with the following ultra right-wing organizations:

* The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens’ Committee for the

Right to Keep and Bear Arms. These groups opposed federal legislation to

outlaw hollow-point, Teflon-coated ‘‘Cop Killer’’ bullets for the protection of

law enforcement officers, and the Brady Bill, calling Sarah Brady, whose husVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 77615.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
126

band was permanently disabled in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, a liar.

* It has been reported that Gottlieb is, or has been, a member of the board of

governors of the ultra-secretive Council for National Policy (CNP), known to

be the central leadership network of the far right in the U.S. True to form,

CNP membership is secret, but it is reported to include such right-wing stalwarts as former Attorney General Edwin Meese, Holland Coors, Jerry

Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oliver North.

• Gottlieb reportedly showed his true colors in his conduct during the Vietnam

War. First, he opposed students protesting against the war at the University

of Tennessee. However, he had no intention of fighting and his father pulled

strings to get him into the National Guard, where he reportedly served only one

weekend per month and an annual two-week training period at a missile site

on Long Island. In the height of hypocrisy, in 1969, Gottlieb joined William F.

Buckley’s Young Americans for Freedom and reportedly organized support for

the very war he had no intention to fight in himself.

• During the 1980’s Gottlieb had office buildings housing two of his supposedly

non-profit front groups transferred into his and his wife’s name. Those non-profits then leased the office space from the Gottliebs for about $4,000 per month.

Quite a cozy arrangement for someone ostensibly so concerned about non-profit

financial arrangements.

• The so-called ‘‘Wise Use’’ Movement was founded and is sustained primarily by

the west’s big-four natural resource exploitive industries who are regular contributors to your campaign chest—logging, mining, energy, and ranching, including The American Mining Congress, the National Cattlemen’s Association, DuPont, Exxon Co., USA, Louisiana Pacific, Northwest Independent Forest Manufacturers, Willamette Forestry Council, and the Timber Association of

California.

• Gottlieb was a director and Arnold was the first president and registered agent

of the American Freedom Coalition, a political action group for the Rev. Sun

Myung Moon’s right-wing extremist views. Moon is the notorious leader of the

Unification Church that accords him divine status and who has been quoted as

saying he wants to establish a theocratic empire to rule the world.

These few points give a clear picture of the unreliable, biased interests that underlie the CCF’s and CDFE’s smear campaign against animal and environmental

protectionists. In stark contrast, PETA works to expose and end illegal and cruel

treatment of animals perpetrated by the industries that exploit other species for

profit, fund CCF and CDFE, and want nothing more than to keep the suffering of

animals hidden away from the light of public scrutiny.

The February Hearing and the Release of Your Letter of Inquiry

Despite Berman’s obvious bias, he was permitted to ‘‘testify’’ at the February

hearing by spewing lies and half-truths about PETA. Although his appearance and

expected testimony were likely confirmed with the subcommittee staff well in advance, not a single subcommittee member or staff person contacted PETA prior to

his appearance to check on the falsity of his allegations. Similarly, PETA’s request

to appear before the subcommittee was refused when it learned of his expected testimony the day before the hearing. With all due respect to the members of the subcommittee, such conduct undermines the subcommittee’s credibility and exemplifies

the all too prevalent partisan posturing the citizens of this country hold in such disregard. Fortunately, Congressman Inslee, in the limited manner he was afforded,

exposed Berman as the paid mouthpiece of big business that he is.

Regrettably, the first PETA heard of your letter to Ms. Newkirk was from media

representatives who confirmed that the letter was already posted on CDFE’s web

site. It is troubling that the letter was first released to the same industry fear-monger that represents the special interest groups that contribute large amounts to your

election committee (see below), rather than to the charity to which the letter is ostensibly addressed. Such tactics are counterproductive to a fair and objective analysis of the facts.

Campaign Contributions to You by Industries Opposed to PETA

Consistent with its protection and aggressive exercise of its own freedom of

speech, PETA supports the right of every person or organization to contribute funds

to the political party or candidate of their choosing (although PETA does not engage

in such conduct as a non-profit organization). However, PETA also believes that the

public has a right to be told about such contributions on the public record during

Congressional hearings when the interests of those donors are directly implicated

in those hearings. Sadly, that did not happen in this case.

127

A review of political action committee (PAC) contributors to your campaign during

the 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 election cycles, as disclosed in Federal Election Commission reports, reads like a ‘‘Who’s Who’’ of corporate special interests opposed to

animal and environmental protectionists, or that fund the CCF and CDFE, including the following:

American Forest and Paper Association, American Meat Institute, Anheuser–

Busch, Ashland, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, Association of Commercial Real Estate Development, Association of

American Railroads, Aventis Pasteur, Beef–PAC (Beef PAC of Texas Cattle Breeders

Association), BP Corporation of North America, Brinker International (see discussion above regarding ties to CCF, Berman, and other animal exploitive interests),

Bristol–Myers Squibb, Burlington Northern Santa Fe RailPAC, Chevron Texaco,

Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Conagra Foods, Cyprus Amax Minerals, Dairy Farmers of America, DuPont, EnPAC (KN Energy), Enron (see below), Exxon Mobil, Food

Marketing Institute, General Electric, Ice Cream, Milk & Cheese PAC, Johns Manville, Louisiana Pacific, Marathon Oil, Merck, MinePAC (National Mining Association), National Beer Wholesalers, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National

Restaurant Association, Newmont Mining Corporation, NRA, Peabody Energy,

Pfizer, Philip Morris, PAC by Coors Employees, RAG American Coal Holding, Safari

Club International, Safeway, SmithKline Beecham, Southern Company, Suiza

Foods, Sunbelt (Winn–Dixie stores), Union Pacific, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power,

Warner–Lambert, and Zeneca.

These contributions, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, were not disclosed

on the record of the February hearing so far as PETA is aware. Even if current congressional rules do not require it, fairness dictates such disclosures so the public can

see the source and amount of contributions from people or industries having an interest in the subcommittee’s business.

In addition, you received five contributions totaling $3,000, twice the amount of

PETA’s proper donation discussed below, from executives of a company called Vail

& Associates, including a man named Porter Wharton. One of the witnesses who

appeared at the February hearing was Porter Wharton III, Senior Vice President

of Public Affairs for Vail Resorts, Inc. The apparent connection between Porter

Wharton the donor and Porter Wharton III the witness was not disclosed or discussed on the hearing’s public record. Confirmation of whether the two Mr. Whartons are the same person, or if they are related in any way, and the relationship

between Vail & Associates (for whom your donors work), and Vail Resorts, Inc. who

employs Mr. Wharton III seems warranted.

Your Enron Contributions

According to Colorado’s own The Daily Camera, since 1993 you have received political contributions totaling $6,000 from Enron. Enron’s recent bankruptcy has left

its employees’ retirement plans in ruin, and has disclosed the extreme riches enjoyed by its executives while the company was heading for disaster. As The Daily

Camera correctly stated on March 8th regarding these contributions:

It is no more fair to suggest that PETA supports eco-terror than it is to

imply that [Congressman] McInnis profits from corporate terror. When he

stops grandstanding, maybe [Congressman] McInnis will admit this.

PETA’s Expenditures in Defense of Liberty

On very rare occasions during its two decades of operation, PETA has proudly

provided financial assistance to help protect the fundamental constitutional rights

of people targeted by grand juries or accused of actions relating to animals. Each

of those instances has been widely reported and disclosed in PETA’s publicly available financial reports. In this country, every person is presumed innocent and has

the right to effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial, no matter what the allegations are against them. Likewise, individual citizens targeted by grand jury investigations are entitled to legal representation. It is simply wrong and inexcusable for

anyone to suggest that such assistance in any way constitutes support for the underlying actions with which they were charged, subsequently convicted, or which

were the subject of investigation.

Protection of those freedoms is entirely consistent with PETA’s charitable animal

protection mission when the issues involved concern the treatment of animals in our

society. Such assistance plays an important role in helping to ensure that people

speaking out to expose animal abuse will not be chilled in exercising their equally

fundamental rights to free speech and free association. Without those rights, real

social change for the protection of animals, or any other purpose, will be stifled. The

animal protection movement is merely the latest social change movement to face

128

such opposition from the multi-billion dollar special interests arrayed against it.

PETA will not be deterred in its mission.

The case of Rodney Coronado is an appropriate example of PETA’s defense of constitutionally-guaranteed rights. PETA knew Mr. Coronado to be a dedicated Native– American activist, as well as an animal protection advocate and a committed teacher in the Native American community. Following his arrest, PETA provided financial assistance for his legal defense, including a loan to his father in the amount

of $25,000 to assist in posting bond pending his trial (Mr. Coronado fully honored

his bail, properly appearing for every required court appearance), and payment of

his legal fees. Contrary to Berman’s testimony at the February hearing and erro- neous published reports, the $25,000 loan was repaid to PETA in full.

The case of Roger Troen is equally illuminating. According to published reports,

in 1986, Mr. Troen was a 56 year-old Air Force veteran and former elementary

school teacher known for his compassion toward animals in his Bellevue, Washington community. One night he received an anonymous telephone call asking him

to care for two rabbits badly in need of a home. Rather than turn his back on the

animals, he took the animals in, no questions asked. A few weeks later, the veterinarian to whom Mr. Troen had taken the animals for treatment led police to him.

It turned out that the animals had been removed from the horrific University of

Oregon (U.O.) testing laboratory.

PETA agreed to pay Mr. Troen’s legal fees, which resulted in the exposure of the

torture and suffering perpetrated against these animals by so-called ‘‘scientists.’’ His

trial disclosed that two U.O. experimental psychologists, Richard Marrocco and Barbara Gordon–Lickey, neither of whom had any medical or veterinary training, and

their unsupervised students, performed complicated surgeries on improperly anesthetized animals in taxpayer-funded experiments. Gordon–Lickey sewed kittens’ eyes shut, rotated kittens’ eyeballs in their heads, and made them perform feats like

jumping from a high platform into a pan of water. Marrocco played with the vision

of macaques who had electrodes implanted into their skulls. Their work had no established link whatsoever to human health. Their colleague, Gregory Stickrod, who

also had no medical or veterinary training, performed surgeries on pregnant rats

and other animals as part of his own psychology experiments. For his own amusement, Stickrod terrorized a baby monkey, while casually smoking a cigarette and

drinking a beer, and kept a photograph of the episode along with his training slides.

Incredibly, Stickrod was the director of animal care for all of U.O. Not surprisingly,

the trial exposed U.O.’s failure to provide even basic veterinary care for the 20,000

animals on its campus. The judge presiding over the trial, and an U.O. alum, expressed his disgust and embarrassment at being associated with the University.

Had PETA not provided funds for Mr. Troen’s defense, none of these startling revelations would ever have come to light. The animals simply would have continued

to suffer at the hands of their torturers, and their cries would have gone unheard.

For merely receiving the animals, and despite his compassion in caring for animals

removed from that living hell, Mr. Troen was fined $34,900 and given five years’

probation. PETA never paid a single penny of that fine.

As disclosed in its public tax returns, PETA also assists hundreds of organizations

and individuals around the world in their efforts to educate people about the plight

of animals. Each of those donations is identified in PETA’s reports as being made

to ‘‘support their program activities;’’ that is, their lawful, charitable, animal protection program activities. It was in furtherance of this mission that PETA lawfully

and properly gave $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office.

In April 2001, PETA sent a check in the amount of $1,500.00 to the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office to assist Craig Rosebraugh with legal expenses related to free speech activities regarding animal protection issues. Mr.

Rosebraugh is known in the animal protection community for his legal, educational

work fighting horrifying and cruel experiments on primates in Oregon. The check

was made payable to ‘‘North American Earth Liberation Front, C Rosebraugh.’’ The

endorsement signature on the cancelled check appears to be that of ‘‘Craig

Rosebraugh,’’ although I am not familiar with his signature. PETA has provided no

other funds to the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office.

PETA has no involvement with the ALF or ELF direct actions

PETA has no involvement with or connection to Animal Liberation Front (ALF)

or Earth Liberation Front (ELF) actions. PETA does not provide any funds to the

ALF, ELF, or any person or organization for use in any ALF or ELF direct action.

In fact, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it is unknown whether any

such ‘‘organizations’’ exist to which funds could be provided. Contrary to incorrect

published reports, PETA does not and will not pay any criminal fines assessed

against any person.

129

PETA believes that ALF and ELF actions occur when so-called ‘‘proper channels’’

of change are effectively blocked by people with vested interests and even moderate

legislation is stalled by those profiteers. As President John F. Kennedy said so eloquently forty years ago, ‘‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make

violent revolution inevitable.’’ PETA urges Congress to pass meaningful, enforceable

legislation to stop the abject cruelty perpetrated against animals every day in this

country.

Conclusion

It is unfortunate, but all too predictable, that the 21st century still finds social

change movements and organizations like PETA and so many others subjected to

defamatory attacks by industries that exploit those weaker than themselves for financial gain. Undoubtedly, the agents of this new ‘‘McCarthyism’’ will be viewed

with the same revulsion expressed for the original. It is PETA’s fervent hope, for

the welfare of this nation, that such tactics, whether launched from the right or the

left, will be relegated to history’s trash heap, for they have no place in any rational

vision of this nation’s future.

I trust this letter addresses your inquiries. Thank you again for the opportunity

to respond to your inquiries and for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Jeffrey S. Kerr

General Counsel and

Director of Corporate Affairs

PETA Foundation

cc: Members

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Resources

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti

Internal Revenue Service

[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Nichols follows:]

Statement of Nick Nichols, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NicholsDezenhall Communications Management Group, submitted for the record

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Nick Nichols. I am

the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nichols—Dezenhall Communications

Management Group, headquartered in Washington, D.C. Thank you for giving me

the opportunity to submit testimony to the Subcommittee. I speak in two capacities:

as an author of a recently published book dealing with attacks by eco-terrorists, animal rights terrorists, and others on America’s free enterprise system and American

corporations; and as the chairman of a crisis management firm that has helped corporations and individuals respond to attacks, including violent terrorist acts.

My testimony today is designed to deliver one central message: Congress and the

Executive branch should investigate and prosecute eco-and animal rights terrorism

with the same vigor and intensity as directed against foreign terrorists. This is a

matter of homeland security. I hope I can be helpful to the Subcommittee in casting

light on the seriousness of these attacks by domestic terrorists, and on the need for

action by our government to protect the safety, the jobs and the way of life of the

American people.

I have spent years studying environmental and animal rights terrorists because

I came to the conclusion, long before September 11, that these domestic terrorists

posed a serious and growing danger to our nation. September 11 only strengthened

my belief that if we don ‘‘t act to stop our home-grown terrorists they will follow

in the footsteps of their more deadly counterparts from abroad, escalating their activities and moving beyond crimes that destroy property to crimes that destroy

human lives.

Terrorism Is Not Free Speech

We can all agree that the First Amendment to the Constitution is the foundation

of our freedom and democracy, and is the basis of our long and proud tradition of

peaceful protest, free speech and a free press. If someone wants to advocate, raise

funds, and campaign peacefully to demand that we never cut down a single tree,

130

never kill a single animal and never drill for a drop of oil, I will tell you that the

person is advocating nonsense—but I ‘‘ll defend his or her right to do so. But when

extremists use the First Amendment as a cloak to break the law, commit violent

acts and terrorize others—no matter how noble their justification—they become

criminals and terrorists. Breaking into university research labs to release animals

being used for medical research, burning down buildings, vandalizing a facility for

sick children and their families, driving spikes into trees and injuring loggers, and

setting bombs in truck dealerships are not protest actions protected by the First

Amendment—they are terrorist acts.

The Patriot Act of 2001 defines terrorism in great detail. More broadly, the FBI

defines terrorism as ‘‘the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce—the government or civilian population. I use the same

definitions. I don ‘‘t use the term ‘‘terrorist—lightly, or as some kind of broad brush

attack on the majority of environmentalists or advocates of animal rights. Millions

of people—myself among them—are sincere advocates of protecting our environment, and differ peacefully on what actions are needed and how much governmental

regulation is required to accomplish that goal. People can have an honest and nonviolent debate over whether we should halt medical research on animals that is

being conducted to find cures for cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and many other illnesses. But when someone goes beyond words and advocacy and moves on to violence and threats of violence, that person becomes a terrorist. These terrorists are

a small minority of people concerned with the environment and with the welfare of

animals, just as the terrorists of al Qaeda are a small minority of the world’s Muslims. But ignoring these dangerous people can be a fatal mistake. As we saw on

September 11, a small group of terrorists can cause an enormous amount of death

and destruction.

For too long, eco-and animals rights terrorists have been portrayed in the media

as warm- hearted, well-meaning folks who are dedicated to good causes like preserving and cleaning up the environment, protecting public health, preventing cruelty to animals, and ensuring that corporations and the government operate in a

responsible manner that benefits society. The prevailing wisdom has gone like this:

perhaps a few of these sincere people—motivated only by the public interest—get

a bit overenthusiastic at times. But they mean well, and the best way to deal with

them is to give in to as many of their demands as possible—even when the demands

have no basis in sound science, economics or social policy. But that prevailing wisdom is about as accurate as the view that Osama bin Laden is a sweet and loving

man of God, and the al Qaeda and the Taliban are peaceful religious scholars seeking to establish a utopian society.

Eco-and animal rights terrorists, along with the foreign terrorists of al Qaeda,

have a lot in common. All are certain that they are morally superior to their opponents and are fighting for virtuous goals that justify criminal conduct. All are disdainful of fundamental American values, including the rule of law, private property

rights, free enterprise and democracy. All operate in cells or ‘‘sleeper—groups, which

makes detection very difficult. All operate globally. And many receive encouragement, support and funding from groups that are perceived to be legitimate charities.

In the United States, charitable groups classified as 501 (c)(3)groups under the

tax code benefit from taxpayer subsidies, government grants and foundation philanthropy. This classification can bring enormous financial benefit to extremist groups.

For example, Mike Roselle, the co-founder of the radical group Earth First!, which

has been linked to and has taken credit for many acts of violence, has served on

the boards of Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network. He also founded the

Ruckus Society, which has organized so-called boot camps that have trained protesters to engage in ‘‘direct action—demonstrations at events that have turned violent, including the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. The Ruckus Society is a tax-exempt, 501 (c)(3), organization that has received funding from the

Turner Foundation and is, in effect, subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

Examples of Domestic Terrorism

No one has compiled a complete list of eco-and animal rights terrorist attacks,

since these incidents are usually handled by local law enforcement authorities. But

to illustrate the seriousness of this problem, let me give you a few examples:

• One of the most active eco-terrorist groups—the Earth Liberation Front ((ELF)’’

boasts on its website ‘‘www.earthliberationfront. com—that ‘‘in North America

alone since 1997, the ELF has caused over $40 million in damages—in its attacks. ELF says proudly that it is responsible for a $12 million arson at a Vail,

Colorado ski resort; a $1 million arson at the Boise Cascade lumber company

in Monmouth, Oregon; a $5. 4 million fire last year at the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Horticulture in Seattle; a fire that destroyed a U.S.

131

Forest Service Ranger Station in Eugene, Oregon; a $700, 000 arson at a cotton

gin in Visalia, California; a fire at a federally owned wild horse barn in

Susanville, California; a $1 million fire at a meat-packing plant in Redmond,

Oregon; a fire in January at a University of Minnesota greenhouse in St. Paul;

a $1. 5 million fire at a U.S. Department of Agriculture facility in Olympia,

Washington; plus the burning of homes, sport utility vehicles, logging trucks

and many buildings around the country. ELF’s website even carries a ‘‘helpful— instructional manual for terrorists titled: : ‘‘Setting Fires With Electrical Tim- ers—an Earth Liberation Front Guide.—The FBI considers ELF one of the nation’s leading domestic terrorist threats. • A Year–End Direct Action Report for 2001 issued by the Animal Liberation

Front (ALF)states that ALF, ELF and their sympathizers committed at least

‘‘137 illegal direct actions in North America in 2001.—ALF claims responsibility

for attacking 10 fur stores, seven bank offices, 13 fast food restaurants, five research labs, four animal breeders, four meat stores, and numerous other targets. ALF is classified by the FBI as a terrorist organization. The group even

took credit on September 11 for torching a McDonald’s restaurant in Tucson,

Arizona, causing about $500, 000 damage. The attackers announced: ‘‘This action is meant to serve as a warning to corporations worldwide: You will never

be safe from the people you oppress.—Less than two weeks later, attackers

spray-painted swastikas, obscenities, and the initials ALF and ELF on a Ronald

McDonald House in Tucson. Ronald McDonald Houses are charitable facilities

that provide over 3, 000 rooms in 19 countries to house families of children hospitalized nearby with serious illnesses.

• Animal rights terrorists have ‘‘liberated—thousands of animals from fur farms

and medical research labs, including university facilities, in recent years. Encouraging these efforts, Ingrid Newkirk, President of People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals, said at the National Animal Rights Convention in 1997:

‘‘I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or

burn them down.—Most of the ‘‘liberated—animals have wound up as road kill

or have died of starvation. People will die as well, because the terrorists have

set back medical research designed to find life-saving cures for deadly diseases.

Thankfully, nothing these domestic terrorists have done even comes close to the

terrible toll of death and destruction caused by the hijackers who flew airliners into

the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania. But home-grown

terrorism has caused plenty of harm. Authorities fear it is only a matter of time

before fires set by these terrorists destroy lives as well as property—either as accidental ‘‘collateral damage,—or in a deliberate escalation of violence.

Firebombs don ‘‘t check for innocent bystanders before going off, and it’s a wonder

that more injuries and even deaths have not taken place in eco-and animal rights

terrorist attacks. In one incident, unidentified animal rights terrorists mailed razorrigged letters, designed to cut fingers, to fur industry officials and scientists conducting experiments with animals in 1999—hardly a non—violent action. In another, law enforcement officials in Houghton, Michigan disarmed two bombs at

Michigan Tech University last November—and said students walking nearby could

have been maimed or killed if the bombs had gone off. Injuries were also averted

when eco-terrorists attacked a car dealership in Eugene, Oregon and set up jugs of

camp fuel and gasoline around a fuel truck belonging to an oil company. Fortunately, the effort to start a massive and potentially deadly explosion failed.

Arsonists later destroyed 30 sport-utility vehicles in a blaze at the dealership.

Imagine what would have happened if—on September 10—someone had testified

before Congress that Osama bin Laden was on the verge or murdering thousands

of Americans, causing billions of dollars in property damage, plunging the United

States into war, and forcing our country to spend billions of dollars in extra funds

on homeland security. Most people would have called this person an alarmist at

best—or just plain crazy at worst. A lot of people probably have the same reaction

to warnings like those I am giving you today about eco-terrorists and animal rights

terrorists. But my warnings aren’t based on alarmism or hysteria. They are based

on the record of domestic terrorism that these groups have built up so far, and the

fact that many of these groups are promising to escalate their activities in the future.

Surrender Is Not a Winning Strategy

Capitulation counselors have been telling us for years to pursue surrender to

terrorist groups as a winning strategy, just as Neville Chamberlain told the world

in 1938 that appeasement was a winning strategy to deal with Adolf Hitler. In our

own country, we have been advised to give in to nonsensical radical demands by ecoand animal rights fanatics that would cost families and government huge sums of

132

money, would condemn millions of people to death by interfering with vital medical

research on animals, and would prevent advances in agriculture that could save millions of people from starvation. On the foreign front, we have been advised to understand the ‘‘root causes—of terrorism, and work to ‘‘tell our story better—and

empathize with poor and oppressed people struggling for dignity, self-determination

and the right to follow their religious beliefs. Like flight attendants before September 11, we have been told that by being passive and cooperative with our

attackers at home and abroad, we could persuade them to put down their weapons

and do us no harm.

Unfortunately for thousands of innocent people, the well-meaning strategy of passivity made September 11 their last day on earth. And just as this strategy failed

on September 11 with al Qaeda terrorists, it is a failure when dealing with eco-and

animal rights terrorists. A much better strategy is to acknowledge the threat we

face and say ‘‘let’s roll. ‘‘ Winston Churchill, who succeeded Chamberlain as Prime Minister and fought

Hitler ferociously, was right when he said: ‘‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.—The fact is that when criminals and terrorists

enjoy success and go unchallenged they grow stronger, become even more contemptuous of the rule of law, and commit ever more damaging crimes and acts of terror.

Appeasement encouraged Hitler to become more aggressive and dangerous, and led

to World War II and the Holocaust. In the same way, toleration of previous terror

attacks only strengthened Osama bin Laden and his followers, emboldening them

to carry out the atrocities of September 11. And now appeasement of eco-and animal

rights terrorists is only encouraging them to become more violent and more dangerous.

President Bush Has Shown Us How To Deal With Terrorists

The vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of Members of Congress,

regardless of political party, stand solidly behind President Bush in his tough, principled and effective response to terrorism from abroad. Like millions of other Americans, I ‘‘m grateful to see the bipartisan unity and patriotism sweeping across our

nation and strengthening our homeland security. Unfortunately, even as our nation

is at war with al Qaeda and other foreign terror groups, eco-and animal rights

terrorists in our country continue to wage their own war against America.

Former ELF spokesman Craig Rosebraugh, who was subpoenaed to appear at

today’s hearing by this Subcommittee, issued a statement November 1 saying he

would not cooperate with Congress in its ‘‘attempts—to stop the work of the brave,

heroic, individuals in the ELF who are trying to end the destruction of life.—Mr.

Rosebraugh said in the statement: ‘‘In light of the events of September 11, my country has told me that I should not cooperate with terrorists. I therefore am refusing

to cooperate with members of Congress who are some of the most extreme terrorists

in history. Currently they are responsible for allowing the slaughter of now over an

estimated 1, 500 Afghanistan civilians. They are responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks

due to horrendous U.S. foreign policies of imperialism and they are responsible for

the current ongoing genocide against the innocent people of Afghanistan. ‘‘

ALF said in its 2001 annual report: ‘‘Since Sept. 11 there has been no ceasing

of animal abuse, animal torture, and animal killing. The destruction of our natural

environment in the name of progress or development and greed hasn’t stopped. In

the face of this continuous onslaught it would be irresponsible for animal and earth

warriors to abandon their campaigns and actions at this time. In fact, it is imperative that direct action activists continue, and indeed step up their actions in this

late hour on our planet. ‘‘

I have nothing against reasonable compromise with reasonable people. But the

conduct and statements of ELF, ALF, and similar extremist groups shows they are

unwilling to make reasonable compromises. Trying to negotiate and compromise

with them today would make as much sense as negotiating and compromising with

Osama bin Laden.

After September 11, President Bush didn’t call for dialogue, sympathy and empathy with the butchers of al Qaeda and the Taliban. And he didn’t call for surrender

to bin Laden’s wild demands. Instead, President Bush made some sensible and nonnegotiable demands of his own. When those demands were rejected, the United

States responded with military action. Of course, I don ‘‘t advocate—and don ‘‘t

know of anyone who advocates—sending bombers and Special Forces after the ecoand animal rights terrorists in our midst. But we should send police and prosecutors. Our laws must be enforced and action must be taken to protect America

against a domestic terrorist assault that has already caused tens of millions of dollars in property damages, forced institutions to spend precious funds on increased

security, and threatens to cause more injuries and even deaths in the future.

133

Suggestions For Congress And The Executive Branch

I respectfully submit the following suggestions for Subcommittee consideration to

protect our nation against eco-and animal rights terrorists:

1) Create a clearinghouse within the FBI for the collection of information about

eco-terrorist and animal rights terrorist events. Historically, many of these

terrorist incidents have been investigated by local law enforcement. There’s

nothing inappropriate about that, but there has been no centralization of information about these incidents. This may have compromised law enforcement’s

ability to follow the trail of these extremists. Terrorists move around, frequently crossing state and municipal lines. Authorities in one jurisdiction need

to know about suspects and activities in other jurisdictions.

2) Review and consider tightening the criteria for the distribution of government

grants to non-profit organizations. New criteria could require grant recipients

to be completely transparent about their operations, policies and financial

transactions. This would enable donors, the public and the authorities to know

if money contributed for ostensibly good causes was really being used for crime

and terrorism.

3) Review and consider tightening and clarifying the criteria for granting tax- exempt status [501 (c)(3)] to organizations seeking that privilege. New criteria

could require the recipients of 501 (c)(3)status to be completely transparent

about their operations, policies, financial transactions, advocacy and lobbying

activity. It is perfectly reasonable to require more public disclosure before

granting the valuable privilege of a tax exemption.

4) Review and consider further clarifying the statutory definition of terrorism to

include actions designed to intimidate individuals through the explicit or implicit threat of violence and/or property destruction. Historically, animal rights

and eco-terrorist organizations have published the names, photos, home addresses and telephone numbers of targeted individuals, such as corporate executives, researchers and scientists. The groups have encouraged their followers to harass, intimidate, and attack these individuals, their family members and/or their property. Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski testified in court

that he targeted and subsequently killed one of his victims because the individual’s name appeared on a hit list put out by the group Earth First!

Conclusion

Our home-grown terrorists detest America’s businesses, our free enterprise system, our environmental policies, our use of animals for food and medical research,

our judicial system, our elected officials, and many other American institutions and

values. They use arson and other weapons to wage war against our economy and

our freedom. They think they are heroes and crusaders for justice, just as the September 11 hijackers thought of themselves in this way.

But terrorism is terrorism, not heroism, no matter how noble the cause in the

terrorist’s fanatical mind. Just as President Bush has responded to Osama bin

Laden by saying his brand of murderous terrorism is intolerable, our government

must tell law-breaking eco- terrorists and animal rights terrorists that their brand

of fiery terrorism is intolerable as well. Our laws need to be enforced fairly and

without prejudice against anyone who breaks them, regardless of the cause the

lawbreakers espouse. These include local laws against crimes like trespassing, vandalism and malicious mischief. Too often, law enforcement ignores these infractions—encouraging violators to escalate their activities. When someone commits

such violations, or moves on to burning down buildings and more serious crime, he

or she should be punished whether the burning was in support of ELF, ALF, the

Nazi Party, al Qaeda, the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross, the American Cancer Society

or any religious group. The worthiness of the cause in the mind of the criminal

should be irrelevant.

For too many years, the United States failed to devote the necessary attention

and dedicate the necessary resources to fighting terrorism originating abroad. We

shouldn’t make the same mistake when fighting the home-grown variety. We can

‘‘t afford to let our inaction today give American terrorists the green light to escalate

their terror tactics to horrifying proportions tomorrow.

Once again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for

giving me this opportunity to submit this testimony.

Æ