U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–408 u WASHINGTON : 2000

FUNDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES AND

THEIR IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 15, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC.

Serial No. 106–87

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://www.house.gov/resources
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho, Chairman

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ADAM SMITH, Washington

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

RON KIND, Wisconsin

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

DOUG CRANDALL, Staff Director

ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff

JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held February 15, 2000 ............................................................................ 1

Statements of Members:

Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Idaho ................................................................................................ 01

Prepared State of ....................................................................................... 04

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington ............................................................................................................. 06

Statements of witnesses:

Arnold, Mr. Ron, Executive Vice President, Center for the Defense of

Free Enterprise, Bellevue, Washington ...................................................... 08

Prepared State of ....................................................................................... 11

DeVargas, Mr. Antonio, Officer, Rio Arriba County Land Planning Department, La Madera, New Mexico ............................................................. 62

Prepared State of ....................................................................................... 64

Lyall, Mr. Jeff A., Disabled Outdoorsman, Catawba, Virginia ..................... 58

Prepared State of ....................................................................................... 60

White Horse Capp, Ms. Diana, Chairman, Upper Columbia Resource

Council, Curlew, Washington ....................................................................... 44

Prepared State of ....................................................................................... 46

Additional Material Supplied:

Correspondence ................................................................................................. 99

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FUNDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES AND THEIR IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen ChenowethHage (Chairperson of the Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. The Subcommittee is meeting today to

hear testimony on the funding of environmental initiatives and

their impact on local communities.

In last week’s Economist magazine, one of the lead stories was

about non-governmental organizations, or NGO’s. The article said

that ‘‘the general public tends to see them as uniformly altruistic,

idealistic, and independent. But they are often far from being ‘nongovernmental’, as they claim. And they are not always a good

force’’. The Economist goes on to say that NGO’s ‘‘deserve much

sharper scrutiny’’. That is what we are doing here today: examining

the funding of NGO’s environmental initiatives on the national forests and their impact on local communities.

A full Committee hearing on the Impact on Federal Land Use

Policies on Rural Communities’’ was held on June 9, 1998. At that

hearing, it was pointed out that in States with a high percentage

of Federal land, there is a significant urban-rural prosperity gap.

Urban areas are booming while rural areas are reeling. Many witnesses attributed this to Federal land management policies and

outlined specific examples of how current Federal land management policies have had devastating impacts on the economies of

their communities. Several witnesses pointed out that many of the

destructive Federal policies were implemented as a result of NGO

environmental advocacy, financed by tax exempt grants from private charitable foundations.

Environmental groups are relying more and more on wealthy

non-profit foundations to fund their operations. According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, foundations invest at least $400

million a year in environmental advocacy and research. The largest

environmental grant-maker, the $4.9 billion Pew Charitable
2

Trusts, gives more than $35 million annually to environmental

groups.

Advocacy for national forests policy initiatives appears to be

largely financed by charitable foundations through tax-free grants.

For example, the Clinton-Gore Administration’s Roadless Initiative

may withdraw up to 60 million acres of National Forest Lands for

multiple use. This initiative appears to have been organized and

funded by charitable foundations, primarily the Philadelphia-based

Pew Charitable Trusts.

Since September 1998, Pew has given the National Audubon So- ciety more than $3.5 million in tax-free grants to organize the Heritage Forests Campaign, a coalition of about a dozen environmental

groups. The sole objective of the Campaign appears to be the creation of widespread public support for the Clinton-Gore Administration’s initiative to restrict access on 60 million acres of national

forest lands.

The Heritage Forests Campaign illustrates several potential

problems with foundation-financed environmental political advocacy, namely, the lack of fair, broadbased representation and the

absence of accountability. Particularly disturbing is this Administration’s acquiescence to the Campaign in the setting of policy. At

a recent hearing on the Roadless Initiative, I asked George

Frampton, Director of the Council on Environmental Quality, for

the names of all those attending any meetings he held regarding

the development of this initiative. The list he sent in response is

a who’s-who in the environmental community. Even more telling is

that not one individual representing recreation, industry, academia, county commissioners, or local schools were in attendance.

Only representatives of the national environmental groups participated.

Now only was the public excluded during these meetings, but so

was Congress. The Administration’s Roadless Initiative appears to

be an attempt to bypass the role of Congress. Under Article IV,

Section 3 of the United States Constitution, Congress possesses the

ultimate power over management and use of lands belonging to the

United States. If the Roadless Initiative is universally popular,

why can’t the Heritage Forests Campaign get it enacted by Congress through the normal legislative process? Administrative directives such as the Roadless Initiative bypass Congress and centralize policymaking authority within the hands of unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. Foundation-funded advocacy

groups make back room deals thus denying the average citizen a

voice and input into the policy through their elected representatives in Congress. As a result, our Government becomes more remote and unresponsive to the needs of the average citizen.

To whom is the Heritage Forests Campaign accountable? This

Campaign is put together by foundations, not the participants. The

grantees are accountable to the foundations that fund them, not

even their own members. Foundations have no voters, no customers, no investors. The people who run big foundations are part

of an elite and insulated group. They are typically located hundreds

or even thousands of miles from the communities affected by policies that they advocate. They receive little or no feedback from

those affected by their decisions, nor are they accountable to any-
3

one for promoting policies which adversely affect the well being of

rural people and local economies. Today’s witnesses will tell us how

their communities are being crushed by an inaccessible and faceless movement wielding great power and influence.

The Economist is right to say that NGO’s deserve much sharper

scrutiny. I agree, but even more important is the issue of the

undue influence being granted these groups by the Administration.

As we progress through this and future hearings, I believe it will

become clear that this isn’t an issue concerning the environment—

not at all—but rather one concerning power and its use for political

ends, with rural communities being trampled in the process.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage follows:]
4
5
6

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. And now the Chairman recognizes Mr.

Smith, the Ranking Minority Member, for any statement he may

have.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think

there are some good things that we are going to discuss today, and

some issues that are very legitimate to raise and to talk about.

There are also some things that I am troubled about about this approach.

What is good, and what I think is very fair to raise, are issues

of policy. There are a variety of different environmental policies,

the Roadless Initiative being one of them; what is the proper use

for our public lands—I think all of those things should be discussed

as broadly as possible in as many open hearings as is humanly possible—and I think all of that is very good.

What I am puzzled about is why we seem to think, whether you

agree with them or not—and we live in a democracy, and part of

being in a democracy means that people you disagree with have a

right to express those opinions and have a right to advocate for

those opinions in just about any way they see fit within the law—

the Pew Trusts and a variety of others are doing just that. You

may disagree with what they are doing. You may disagree with

their policies and, if you do, I would strongly urge you—as, in fact,

you have done—to form groups with opposite opinions, and lobby

your Members of Congress, and lobby the Administration, and go

about the democratic process the way it should be done. But for us

to have a hearing and say that a group of people who happen to

advocate a particular set of policies that some folks don’t like,

somehow need to be held up to higher scrutiny than any other

group that is advocating a policy, is a little bit ridiculous to me.

When you look at environmental policy, I hear all the time from

the other side, ‘‘Oh, corporations have undue influence’’. You know,

back in the early part of the Republican Congress in 1995 and

1996, there were endless accusations that corporations were actually drafting the amendments or drafting the legislation that was

going to affect environmental policy, and at the time I was not as

troubled by that as most people. I was troubled by some of the policies, I will grant you, but the fact that citizens of our country were

out advocating for a position, trying to exercise influence, is what

this process is all about. I mean, to hold these people up and say,

‘‘No, you are not supposed to do that’’, as I said, is just ridiculous.

And it seems to me that the focus of this hearing is saying that

these trusts, charitable trusts—individuals, really—who come together to advocate for a position don’t have a right to do so is ridiculous. They absolutely have a right to do so. And if you disagree

with them, organize on the other side, lobby your Members of Congress, lobby the Administration, and try to get that position

changed.

Now, it was mentioned the Roadless policy is not universally popular. Absolutely, it is not. I can tell you in my area it is not. I have

people on both sides of that issue, many who strongly advocate for

it for a variety of different reasons, many others who think that it
7

is an absolutely horrible idea. And I have heard from both of them,

and that is great. I hope I continue to hear from both of them, and

all sides in between and beyond, and I hope the Administration

does, too.

Now, it is quite possible the Administration will adopt a policy

that some folks don’t like. It is quite possible that Members of Congress sitting up here will adopt policies that these folks don’t like,

and they will scream bloody murder about it, and that, too, is fine.

But it is not fine to stand up here and say ‘‘How dare these folks

advocate for a position’’. That is what we do in this country. That

is what makes this country so great. People have a right to advocate for whatever positions they believe in. They have a right to

marshall their resources toward doing that within the bounds of

campaign finance laws, but they have the absolute right to do that.

So, I hope that the bulk of this hearing will focus on some of

these policies. I think we are going to have some excellent testimony from folks who are affected by these policies and who will

challenge some of them, and then we, as lawmakers, as we are, will

make a decision on what is right, what is wrong, what we think

is in the best interest of people. But these folks have a right to say

their piece, the Pew Trust and all the people who are affiliated

have a right to say their piece.

And I will make one closing comment. I think we, as legislators,

have this tendency whenever we are losing an argument, to attack

the process, and I submit to you that that is to our own detriment.

Just as in the 1995 and 1996 years when people on the other side

were attacking not just the policies but the process, who were saying, ‘‘Gosh, it is just horrible that these corporations are talking

about environmental policy, that proves the whole system is corrupt’’. Flip it around, you have people saying, ‘‘Look at the way

these environmentalists are advocating policies, that is just horrible and an abuse of the process’’.

Both sides, when you do that, you damage the whole process.

You damage your own ability to pass an issue because back in 1995

and 1996, if it was the environmentalists saying the process was

flawed, well, now, if they start to get the upper hand and win using

the same methods that their enemies used before, they have indicted a process they are now participating in. The process works

fine on both sides.

Advocate, push, use your influence, lobby, do what your democracy allows you to do, and I hope you will come out on top, but let

us not condemn the process just because we happen to lose an argument. I think that is very damaging to democracy and very damaging to the people’s belief in our democracy, which is suffering

from just such a problem right now.

So, I hope the hearing will focus on issues and not criticizing people for merely advocating things that they believe in.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. I ask for unanimous consent for Mr.

Nethercutt and Mr. Cannon to sit in with this Committee at this

hearing. If there is no objection, so ordered.

I will now introduce our panel. I feel we have a very outstanding

panel today, and I look forward to hearing from all four of you.

Mr. Ron Arnold is Executive Vice President of the Center for the

Defense of Free Enterprise, Bellevue, Washington, and author of a
8

number of very enlightening books, and one that prompted this

hearing. Welcome, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Jeff Lyall, Disabled Outdoorsman from Catawba, Virginia.

Welcome.

And Mr. Antonio DeVargas, Officer of Rio Arriba County Land

Planning Department, La Madera, New Mexico, and it is really

good to see you again. Welcome.

And now I would like to ask Mr. Nethercutt to introduce the next

witness.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for allowing the members of the Subcommittee to sit for a few minutes

to take a moment to introduce Diana White Horse Capp.

I must say, as a member of the Appropriations Committee on the

Interior Subcommittee, it helps us, Chairman, to have this oversight assessment that goes on in an Authorizing committee and the

Resources Committee to help us understand a little better appropriate appropriations for the expenditure for taxpayer dollars. So

I am delighted to have a chance to sit in this hearing for a time.

But it is a pleasure for me to introduce Diana White Horse Capp

this afternoon to the Subcommittee. She is a resident of Ferry

County, Weshington, in the northeastern corner of the 5th Congressional District, which I represent. This is some of the most beautiful country in the State of Washington, and Diana is certainly a

part of the landscape. She has been very active in Federal land

management and property rights issues. Her diverse heritage and

culture have given her great insight into these important issues.

She is an asset to our community in Eastern Washington, and I am

delighted that she could be here today, and welcome her on behalf

of this Subcommittee, and proudly representing the east side of the

State of Washington. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Nethercutt.

As explained in our first hearing, it is the intention of the Chairman to place all outside witnesses under the oath. This is a formality of this Committee that is meant to assure open and honest

discussion and should not affect the testimony given by the witnesses. I believe that all of you were informed of this and were sent

a copy of the Committee rules. So, if you will stand and raise your

right arm to the square.[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Arnold for his

testimony.

TESTIMONY OF MR. RON ARNOLD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF FREE ENTERPRISE,

BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. JEFF A.

LYALL, DISABLED OUTDOORSMAN, CATAWBA, VIRGINIA; MS.

DIANA WHITE HORSE CAPP, CHAIRMAN, UPPER COLUMBIA

RESOURCE COUNCIL, CURLEW, WASHINGTON; AND MR. ANTONIO DeVARGAS, OFFICER, RIO ARRIBA COUNTY LAND

PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LA MADERA, NEW MEXICO

TESTIMONY OF MR. RON ARNOLD

Mr. ARNOLD. Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, my

name is Ron Arnold. I am the Executive Vice President of the Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, a nonprofit organization based
9

in Bellevue, Washington. The Center does not accept and has never

received Government funds.

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this

hearing today. It is timely, indeed. My Center recently completed

a book-length study on the finding of environmental initiatives and

their impacts on rural communities. The book is titled Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant-Driven Environmental Groups,

and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future.

In a nutshell, the message of Undue Influence is that the environmental movement is a three-cornered structure beginning with

tax-exempt foundations which devise multi-million-dollar environmental programs to eliminate resource extraction industries and

private property rights. The foundations direct their funds to the

second leg of the triangle, environmental groups with insider access

to the third leg, executive branch agencies. This powerful ‘‘iron triangle’’ unfairly influences Federal policy to devastate local economies and private property.

In the brief time since Undue Influence was released last October, so many new outrages have come from the executive branch

that they demand separate attention. Therefore, my Center has

documented these new developments in a special report titled

Power To Hurt, which is being released at this hearing. You will

find it attached to my written testimony.

If you will turn to page 4 of Power To Hurt, you will see how

the first leg of the triangle works. Joshua Reichert, the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Environmental Director, once wrote, ‘‘For considerable

sums of money, public opinion can be molded, constituents mobilized, issues researched, and public officials buttonholed, all in a

symphonic arrangement’’.

Madam Chairman, there is evidence that the Pew Charitable

Trusts planned an end-run around Congress and arranged the

Clinton Administration’s new policy to eliminate access to almost

60 million acres of Federal land. They did it by an initiative they

called the Heritage Forest Campaign. Pew grants of more than $3

million have gone to the second leg of this triangle, the National

Audubon Society. Audubon funneled the money to 12 other environmental groups under its supervision. You will find the list on

page 5.

Audubon got a letter of support signed by 170 members of the

House of Representatives for their access closure program. One

wonders how they did that without using tax-subsidized Pew

money to lobby Congress.

But that was not enough. Audubon hired the Mellman Group,

Inc., the President’s own pollster, to produce results saying that the

public favored wilderness over jobs. They had to justify destroying

thousands of rural jobs for an urban movement’s political victory.

Audubon gave those poll results to the third leg of the triangle,

the White House Chief of Staff. Shortly thereafter, President Clinton sent his October 13, 1999 memo to the Secretary of Agriculture

calling for permanent roadless status for those 60 million acres of

Federal land.

Audubon was able to produce this controversial result because its

new Director of Public Policy is Dan Beard, who came straight from
10

the Clinton Administration, where he served as head of the Bureau

of Reclamation.

Pew is only one of dozens of foundations orchestrating our lives

behind the scenes. The Turner Foundation last spring approached

a cluster of environmental groups offering a $5 million grant to create a new group that would enhance their mailing lists by adding

legislative districts, voting records, party affiliations and other political data for each name, which would be prohibitively expensive

for individual groups to do by themselves. That new group, called

the Partnership Project, is now compounding its members’ electioneering power at the ballot box. The facts about the Partnership

Project are on page 6 of Power To Hurt.

If there is any doubt that the foundations are deliberately planning the elimination of resource extraction, one has only to examine an actual grant proposal to a wealthy foundation. Madam

Chairman, you will find the full text of the grant application that

created the Southwest Forest Alliance beginning on page 15 of

Power To Hurt. The disastrous results of the Coalition are spelled

out in shameful detail on page 9. Only little operations totally dependent on government timber were destroyed, not the big corporations that own their own private timberlands.

Madam Chairman, in my researches I found that every segment

of America’s resource extraction economy—food, clothing and shelter—has been targeted by some coalition funded by wealthy foundations. This is an intolerable program of rural cleansing. Foundations are not accountable to anyone. They are totally unregulated.

Madam Chairman, these are serious charges. The Center urges

Congress to investigate the undue influence documented in Power

To Hurt.

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnold follows:]
11
12
13

[The information referred to follows:]
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

The Chair now recognizes Mrs. White Horse Capp for her testimony.

TESTIMONY OF MS. DIANA WHITE HORSE CAPP

Ms. CAPP. Madam Chairman, Committee Members, thank you

for this hearing.

I am Diana White Horse Capp, from Ferry County, Washington,

4.6 million acres in the Kettle Mountains, 7200 people. I am Chairman of the Upper Columbia Resource Council.

Madam Chairman, history shows the elite gain power by pitting

the masses against each other. Our Constitution, based on the Iroquois Great Law of Peace, is intended to prevent such abuses.

Elite foundations now funnel their wealth to environmental

groups who pit the masses against each other. Rural Americans are

condemned as savages just as Natives once were. Rural Natives

and whites work in the same occupations. Our welfare is connected. The south half of my county is Colville Reservation. On the

north half, Colvilles and other Native descendants live in peace

with whites. The community is intermarried. We cannot afford the

division these foundations instigate.

The environmental elite use Native people. They preach about

Tribal Rights and promise to restore justice. Yet they do little for

Native people but use them as poster children to buy the clout of

Treat Rights in their lawsuits. Local activists courted favor on the

Reservation and the Colville Indian Environmental Protection Alliance emerged. This is a foundation grant handled by Winona

LaDuke, a Native recruiter from Minnesota, daughter of the late

Sun Bear, and it is targeted to fight people like me in Ferry County. LaDuke’s webpage here says that the Colville group she funds

is opposed to gold mining on the Reservation. But this article from

High Country News says that that same group successfully lobbied

the Tribal Council to oppose Crown Jewel Mine. Madam Chairman,

the Crown Jewel Mine is not on the Reservation, it is 30 miles

away, minimum. This kind of deception puts a smear on the Tribe’s

name. These activists have come in and they have stirred up political upheaval on the Reservation. I am told that there are Tribal

members who are intimidated and they would like the FBI to step

in.

The environmental elite use the grassroots groups to destroy our

rural culture. Our county is crippled by their attacks on timber,

mining and ranching. Jobs are very scarce. Our children feel hopeless. These elite have really raped our children’s future. These

grants target Ferry County, along with the others I have shown,

with $105,000 just to silence the so-called ‘‘incivility’’ of people like

me concerned with human rights. These grants go through Environmental Media Services, and that outfit is headed by Arlie

Schardt, Al Gore’s former Press Secretary. It looks pretty political

to me.

Slick media activists hound urbanites, screaming that rural cultures destroy the planet when, in fact, we feed and shelter them.

The 1998 National Wilderness Conference announced its plan for

Wilderness designation of the Kettle Range. Ferry County is the

Kettle Range. Their millions wage a high-dollar war for Wilderness
45

in Ferry County along with Kettle Range Conservation Group. Our

county is beautiful, and they covet that beauty enough to rape our

culture. We don’t want to be squeezed out. This cultural genocide

must be acknowledged. Cultural genocide is why the Kootenai

Tribe has joined Idaho’s fight against Wilderness. This petition by

Bret Roberts of the Ferry County Action League has already collected 2,000 area resident signatures against Wilderness designation.

What is worse is that Federal insiders reshape policy to destroy

rural cultures. There is a map here that shows some of the plans

coming at us that are going to squeeze us out. Colville National

Forest’s Public Affairs Officer took vacation time to campaign for

more Wilderness. Pacific Biodiversity Institute boasts that Government agencies request their wilderness maps. And, indeed, here is

the Wilderness Society map in a local Forest Service plan, and it

says ‘‘For planning purposes’’. This is a grant to an environmental

group that says that this group’s lynx study will be used by the

Forest Service for management purposes. This Nature Conservancy

job ad says that their biologists write policy on Indiantown Gap

Military Reservation. That really rubs salt in the wound for me.

Indiantown Gap was taken away from my mother’s people in 1932

by Government troops. I don’t want something like that happening

to my children, too.

Madam Chairman, this genocidal juggernaut must be stopped.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Capp follows:]
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you very much, Ms. Capp.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jeff Lyall. Jeff.

TESTIMONY OF MR. JEFF A. LYALL

Mr. LYALL. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the

Committee. I am honored to have the opportunity to testify before

you here today. My name is Jeff Lyall. I am 32 years of age, and

I live in the Blue Ridge Mountain region of Southwest Virginia.

In June 1991, I received a level C5–6 spinal cord injury as the

result of an auto accident. I was an avid outdoorsman. I liked to

hike, backpack, camp, hunt, fish, et cetera, mostly on National Forest lands in Virginia and North Carolina.

Madam Chairman, I still enjoy the outdoors, but wheelchairs are

poor off-road vehicles. So, in 1995 I modified a Jeep CJ to become

my new legs and feet, and this gave me access to the outdoors once

again. However, not long after that, I discovered that the vast majority of off-highway vehicle roads on National Forest lands in my

area have been closed down. Now I can’t enjoy the outdoors by the

only means available to me, and neither can anyone else with a

mobility impairment.

In the Blacksburg and New Castle Ranger districts where I live

in Virginia, there are some 66 gated National Forest off-highway

vehicle roads, which represent 110 miles of potential forest access,

but there is a problem. Of these 66 roads, only nine are open during certain times and zero are open year round.

Hikers and mountain bikers can use them anytime they like, but

because my feet and those of some of my friends consist of four

wheels and a motor, we are denied access. If that is not discrimination on the basis of a disability by an agency of the Federal Government, nothing is.

Carla Boucher is the attorney for United Four Wheel Drive Association, which is an international organization that represents four

wheel drive enthusiasts. She is bringing a lawsuit against the forest Service on road closure issues. She has documented that less

than 2 percent of all forest visitors use Wilderness areas, but those

areas take up about 18 percent of all National Forest lands.

On the other hand, off highway users, who represent 35 percent

of all forest visitors, traditionally use roads on less than 2 percent

of Forest Service lands. So, it seems that the Forest Service caters

to 2 percent of the visitors to Wilderness areas, while closing roads

that take up less than 2 percent of the total National Forest System.

In the Fall of 1998, I began talks with local National Forest officials. I discovered that the Forest Service has adopted a policy they

refer to as ‘‘Obliterate Roads’’, meaning they intend to gate and destroy as many off-highway vehicle roads as possible. Since these

roads are the only viable access to these public lands by a mobilitychallenged person, this is, in effect, a Federal Policy of Discrimination against the estimated 54 million disabled people in the United

States, not to mention the millions in the senior community who

enjoy the outdoors but are not able to travel as they once did.

Mrs. Boucher found that 76,300 miles of Forest Service roads are

now closed, which represents one in every five miles. Just last year

the Forest Service closed 683 miles out of 800 miles of off-highway
59

vehicle roads in the Daniel Boone National Forest, effectively eliminating motorized access to this area as well.

Within the past year, three off-highway vehicle roads in my own

backyard, which have been open since the 1950’s and 1960’s, were

bulldozed and gated, cutting off my access to these areas also. In

essence, the Forest Service is saying, ‘‘if you can’t walk, we don’t

want you in our forests’’.

This has got to stop. And the people behind it have to be stopped.

Mrs. Boucher has found that these road closures have been pushed

by environmental groups funded by large foundations and working

with Clinton Administration insider.

Mrs. Boucher found that the National Audubon Society pushed

the President to permanently preserve 450 million acres of roadless

areas. The Pew Trusts funded the Audubon Society, which will funnel more than $3 million to 12 environmental organizations to

pressure the Forest Service to shut down more roads.

So, I now understand that it isn’t simply a line officer with the

Forest Service who is shutting me out of our National Forests. It

isn’t even simply a matter of some local or national environmental

organization trying to shut down the forests. It is large, rich foundations such as the Pew Charitable Trusts that are discriminating

against me and the entire disabled community by funding environmental groups to push policies such as ‘‘gate and obliterate’’.

I cannot fight them alone. I am respectfully requesting congressional investigation into the involvement of large foundations in

making land management policy for the Forest Service.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyall follows:]
60
61
62

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Lyall.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Antonio DeVargas. Ike.

TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTONIO DeVARGAS

Mr. DEVARGAS. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee,

my name is Antonio DeVargas. I am the President of La Compania

Ocho, a for-profit, minority-owned business in the logging and processing of timber, located in the small mountain village of

Vallecitos, New Mexico. Unemployment in Vallecitos and the surrounding communities is more than 20 percent.

Madam Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing today

and am honored at the privilege of being invited to testify.

La Compania Ocho operates with the Carson National Forest. As

a direct result of frivolous litigation brought by Forest Guardians,

a Santa Fe-based, self-proclaimed guardian of the forests, La

Compania has been severely crippled in its ability to work. Although the Federal courts have consistently ruled in our favor, the

delays created by Forest Guardians have had a devastating impact

on La Compania Ocho and on the villages which surround

Vallecitos. Forest Guardians has been able to pursue its vindictive

and punishing litigation campaign because of the grants it and its

allies have received from certain large foundations.

This campaign against our way of life and our efforts to create

a local, sustainable economy has been based on half-truths, distortion, and outright lies and has been propped up by the seemingly

endless supply of money for litigation. Numerous foundations have

been involved in supporting the campaign to destroy the Hispanic

village lifestyle. For example, the Pew Charitable Trusts has funneled money to the New Mexico Audubon Society under the auspices that the money would be used to benefit the villages of northern New Mexico, including those in the Vallecitos area. In fact,

those moneys were used to try and destroy our villages.

Foundation money has also been used to create coalitions, the

member groups of which are often like Potemkin villages, organizations consisting of only or two people. The people involved have

been able to successfully create the impression for their funding

sources that they are mass organizations with large bases of support in the coalitions. One example is a group called Carson Watch,

based in Penasco, New Mexico.

When I refer to the false information and distortion of the truth

that are disseminated by these environmentalists, I am referring to

their ‘‘mantra’’ that the forest is being clear cut and that harvesting of timber exceeds the growth of the forest.

As an example, I would like to present figures that are documented on a 73,000 acre tract of land in the Carson National Forest in the El Rito Ranger District. In 1986, our organization requested a site specific inventory in the Vallecitos area. This inventory revealed that this tract of land had 380 million board feet of

timber, that the forest was growing at the rate of 12 million board

feet per year, that 9 million board feet could be harvested

sustainably, and the forest plan allowed for the harvest of 7.2 million board feet per year.

Since 1994, less than 4 million has been harvested and, due to

appeals and litigation brought by various environmental groups
63

funded by organizations mentioned above, that figure has dropped

to less than 1 million per year for the past 3 years. There has been

no clear cutting of timber in this area in my memory or the memory of my parents or grandparents.

Another area in which the lies and misinformation are utilized

is when the funding proposals assert that these groups work with

local and indigenous communities. Nothing could be further from

the truth. In fact, on the few occasions that they have engaged

local villages from affected communities, what they say that they

plan to do is the exact opposite of their intentions, and the only

reason these engagements even occur is so that they can document

that they did meet with the community.

The fact that there was no consensus and that strong opposition

to their plan was expressed is never documented in their proposals

and so they present a very rosy picture that gives the appearance

of cooperation and collaboration with local villages but, in fact, was

a manipulative ploy to misinform the funding sources and the general public.

We, the people of New Mexico, would like to see the U.S. Congress take swift and decisive action to put an end to this abuse of

privilege, and restore our ability to create an economy based on access to the natural resources that are an integral part of our custom, culture, tradition, and right to the pursuit of happiness. Our

commitment in response is to be good and responsible stewards

who will make sure that our activities are sustainable environmentally, economically, culturally and in concert with the tenet of

protecting our heritage for future generations.

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing

and affording me the privilege and honor of presenting my testimony on behalf of my company, my village, my county, and the

countless other rural people whose lives have been devastated by

the abuse of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental

laws that are well meaning but are being abused.

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeVargas follows:]
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you very much.

I am going to step out of the order of things, the manner in

which I usually conduct this hearing, simply to make a comment.

Usually, the Chair recognizes other members for questions at this

time, but I just want to say that I have been a Committee Chair

for going on my fourth year now, and of all the oversight hearings

that we had held—and we have held a lot of them—this may be

the most remarkable of all of the hearings.

The testimony that I have heard today is very startling, and I

agree with the Ranking Member’s assessment about this country,

America, being a land where people can still lobby and have access

to their elected officials, but I guess I just depart a little bit in expressing my concern that it is known to all of us who work in this

world of politics, that money is the ‘‘mother’s milk’’ of successful

politics, and therein lies the touchstone and the reason why we are

having this hearing. When you see a charitable trust that amounts

to $4.9 billion, who can fund one program and one organization to

the tune of millions and millions of dollars. I am sure that Mr. Arnold, Mr. Lyall, Ms. Capp and I have never had the benefit of being

so well funded.

Usually, these organizations have to scramble and pass the hat.

I see some union people in the audience today. Even they had to

take leave from their jobs to come back. People pass the hat and

send people back to Washington, but it is sad to recognize—and

this didn’t happen just in this Clinton Administration, believe me.

I want you to know I would be holding this hearing if Ronald

Reagan were still President, if George Bush were still President,

because some of this started in those Administrations. But without

regard to who is sitting in the White House, this is a malignant

mess and the metastasis is growing very quickly, and it is destroying rural America. It is destroying lives. And I guess some day we

in the Congress have to come face-to-face with the fact that those

who have a lot of money either have a lust for power or care very

little about this being the ‘‘land of opportunity’’ for others, too, who

may not be as well off as they are. And because this Congress

funds grants that eventually make their way into the organizations

that prevent those who live in rural districts from achieving the

success that many of these who are heads of these foundations

have been able to enjoy, we have jurisdiction, and we have a responsibility.

This still is the ‘‘land of opportunity’’ for everyone, no matter

whether you were born of privilege and parents who head foundations or whether you were born a carpenter’s son or dairyman’s

daughter, like I was. So, I thank you very much for your testimony.

I think you are very courageous and brave for bringing this issue

to us.

And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Peterson for his questions.

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the Chairwoman. I come from the eastern

part of this country, but I come from what I call the ‘‘eastern

West’’. My district is northern tier Pennsylvania. It is rural. It is

the most rural district east of the Mississippi. We timber, oil was

discovered, we mine for coal, we manufacture, we process oils and

chemicals, and we farm, and my view is they are all under attack—

at least they are where I come from.
74

But I guess I would like to ask a quick question, and make a few

more comments. Those who you speak of, foundations and Federal

agencies who work together to common goals, I hear often their No.

1 issue is urban sprawl. Would you agree with that, that one of

their top issues is urban sprawl? Is that what you hear also?

Mr. ARNOLD. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON. But I claim and tell them often they are causing

it because, as they force the people who timber, the people who

produce oil, people who mine for coal, people who manufacture/

process, and our farmers who are being devastated today as we

speak, as they leave the rural lifestyle, they go to the urban/suburban areas to try to make a living, and they cause the urban sprawl.

And so while they destroy us, they are also destroying their own

backyards, which in my view makes little sense.

I guess a question I would like to ask is, the use of lawsuits is

a very popular ploy, whether it is to stop timbering or stop any

kind of rural economics, and I often find those who propose the

lawsuits never seem to have a job or at least a visible employer.

In your research and work, any of you, have you found how these

people—are they indirectly funded by somebody? It always seems

like it is somebody hanging out that gets a university professor to

pro bono the lawsuit, and the process starts with no investment

and often shut down many operations.

Mr. ARNOLD. Congressman Peterson, let me try and answer that

as quickly as I can. The short answer is, yes, they are getting

money from somewhere. I would have to refresh my memory to get

the numbers, but I think in your area, in the Allegheny, you have

a thing called the Allegheny Defense Fund, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. PETERSON. That is correct.

Mr. ARNOLD. It has no visible means of support, but it does have

a means of support. If you look carefully into the grant giving of

a well known environmental group called Heartwood in Indiana,

you will find that grants go from there, funneled through

Heartwood to that little group, to do the interesting things they do

in your area, and the money comes from a group of foundations we

call the ‘‘Usual Suspects’’ at my Center because their names show

up everywhere that the kind of thing you are talking about happens, somebody with no visible means of support suddenly has a

ton of money to sue people for things that you wonder why they

are suing them.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, they also have expertise because they are

better at PR than most of us who get elected. They get quoted continually in the papers as if they are experts, and as if they are local

folks, yet nobody knows them, nobody sees them, they don’t belong

to anybody’s church, they are not a part of any community that I

am aware of, but yet they constantly speak as experts on these

issues as if they had credentials.

I guess I would just like to quickly mention the other issue, the

‘‘Roadless’’ issue, which is sort of the current issue, and you so

carefully explained how this was promulgated.

But I have tried to be fair about this issue. I have tried to be

thoughtful. But spending a lot of time in the woods myself—I grew

up spending a lot of time in the forest, and I still do—and I know

in the rural area I live, the people that spend time there, when an
75

area is roadless, very few people enter it. Is that true? Very few

people use—most people my age don’t even want to be on a

roadless area very far for fear of a health problem. I have always

had good direction. My father would go a mile from the road and

he would always get lost, so he never traveled—though he was not

fearful, he didn’t travel very far from a road because he would get

lost. He had no sense of direction. I have always had a good sense

of direction, could figure out how to get home, but I know in hunting you go a mile from the road, you are alone. There is nobody

there. I mean, if there is not a road, you have closed the forest to

human consumption, except a very few hikers—percentage of population, it wouldn’t be even a fraction of a percent that would go in.

Do you figure that is an accurate observation?

Mr. ARNOLD. I do, and you are out in the woods a lot more than

I am.

Mr. LYALL. Yes, sir. On this whole issue, that is my point of

view. Like a person who can walk, they have the option, they can

go wherever they want to go, just as I used to, sir. Now, to a disabled person, a mobility challenged person, the only access that we

have to the outdoors is through free existing roads. I mean, that

is just it. And what access is there is just a very, very small part—

like where I live it, talking about these roads here, if every one of

these 66 roads opened up to give disabled access to the forest, that

would open up approximately 120 acres. And in the two ranger districts where I live, there are 400,000 acres. And I have been dealing with the Forest Service trying to open up these roads to 120.

I have asked for 120 out of 400,000 acres, and I have been getting

a very hard time with that. I mean, I have not just been dealing

on a local level, but I have also been dealing on a national level.

One gentleman I was talking with in the Forest Service up here

in DC., we were talking about this issue, and he was telling me

about, well, our policy might be different than what it is now, but

we get a lot of pressure from these groups like Mr. Arnold has been

talking about, that I don’t know nothing about. And as far as from

the disabled community’s point of view—you know, I have done research—and right now there are approximately 54 million disabled

people in the United States, but we are spread out. The disabled

community is interwoven throughout the fabric of America—big

city, small town, rural, rich, poor—and it is not an organized group,

and therefore it is not given any consideration to, which is an

abomination, in my point of view.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. Well, I think anybody who has had

any health problems, anybody who is aging and are not quite as

strong as they might have been at one time, you are really limiting

our forests to a very few people.

I guess the frustrating thing that I find is that rural people—and

I don’t know that much of America is aware of what is happening

to rural America. I intend to be outspoken about it, but rural people have little ability to fight major foundations and Government

agencies combined.

I was at a hearing this morning where one of these Government

agencies—and I will leave it nameless—was asked by the Chairman of a Committee, an important Committee, Appropriations

Committee, if they were willing to give that Committee 60 days’ no-
76

tice on purchases of land they were going to make—and I would

have thought not approval, just notice—and the head of that organization paused and stuttered and stammered and tried not to answer the question. I mean, where are we when we have Government funded agencies who think their decisions should not be reviewed by Congress, let alone the public? And I think that shows

the elitism that we have that the common goal they have and the

good they think they know is so great that the people be damned,

and that is not what democracy is about. That is not what this

country is about. But it is what is happening in this Administration and departments of Government and with the help of foundations, and I applaud all of you for being willing to investigate and

document as you have.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Smith, and I want to say that since we

have one panel today, I have been rather lenient on the lights, and

we will have a second round. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of

all, I want to say—I don’t want to ask a lot of questions about the

policy except to say that I think the statements that are made

about the policy battles going on in this country are very well

made.

There is a definite disagreement about how we should handle our

public lands, and I think it has been laid out fairly well what the

concerns are about the current policy, and that is the impact that

it has on rural America. And I will even say that I agree with a

significant chunk of that assessment. We have a significant problem in this country where rural America is suffering economically

while the rest of the country does very well and, as public policymakers, we need to figure out some way to change that. There are

a variety of different avenues to get there, but we are not there

now. And I think it is perfectly appropriate to raise challenges to

the policies that would exacerbate that problem and figure out how

to solve them.

What I am curious about is the approach that says people who

disagree with me on a policy do not have a right to advocate that

policy, because I hear this all the time. In my 10 years in politics,

it seems like undue influence is basically that influence that is exercised by the person who disagrees with me, and I hear this from

both sides. I mean, everything that has been testified here, we

could take all four of you away, put four environmentalists up

there, and have them talk to us about corporate trusts and, believe

me, I don’t think corporations are underrepresented in terms of

how much money they put into trusts. Many of them, timber industry, various industries who are interested in resource extraction

fund a trust to do precisely the same thing that the environmentalists are trying to do on the opposite side. This is not peculiar to

one group.

So I think it is a little unfair to hold a hearing that focuses on

one group as if they have invented something brand new in public

policy advocation that is horribly upsetting the balance of the process. As far as having access, that is always an issue. And Democrats can sit up there and squawk about all the Republican access

on a variety of different issues.
77

So, what I am curious about is, with all this stated, what should

be the policy? I mean, are we saying that the Pew Trusts does not

have a right to exist? Are we saying that basically trusts such as

that—and keep in mind that when you are doing this, you are

going to paint a pretty broad brush. I don’t know who funds, I don’t

even know if you are a nonprofit trust, or who it is that funds that,

or whether or not it is public—and there are a lot of different

trusts advocating a lot of different positions out there.

What structurally and fundamentally is wrong with that funding

process, and if you could put aside for a moment the environmental

aspect of it, how should the law be changed, and how should these

people not have the right, in essence, to spend their money and use

their time to advocate what they want to advocate for? And, yes,

I direct this primarily to Mr. Arnold.

Mr. ARNOLD. ‘‘Undue influence’’ is the name of a crime. That is

why it is the title of the book that I wrote. It is also the name of

a civil tort. Those can be handled in a court.

I am petitioning for redress of grievance not before a court, but

before Congress, which is a fundamental right that I have.

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Absolutely.

Mr. ARNOLD. And as a citizen and as an executive of a nonprofit

501(c)(3) with my 990’s right here for your investigation. Our total

income, none of which was from foundations, for 1999 was $26,812.

I take no compensation and never have since I have been there in

1984.

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. I doubt seriously your trust is a

large part of the problem. There are others, however.

Mr. ARNOLD. But to answer your question about what do you do,

how do you change the law, one thing, I think, is that the matter

of fairness can be addressed by the IRS. It has done a considerable

job of making these trusts transparent because there are recent

regulations that require divulging of where the grants went that

are actually taken seriously for the first time, and one of the reasons I was able to produce this book is because the documents were

finally available without spending many, many thousands of dollars going through the foundation centers’ records to find where

those grants were. They did not have to give me their 990’s, now

they do, but they don’t have to tell me where their investment portfolio is, so that if I want to find out the W. Alton Jones Foundation—which I do have their 990’s for 1993 but not since because

they won’t give them to me—that if they have investments in Georgia Pacific to the tune of about $1.4 million, in Louisiana Pacific

to the tune of about $1.2 million, and in Western Mining to the

tune of something like 600,000 shares—and I would have to look

to see what those numbers really were—I would like to know that.

I think that is simply a matter of public transparency, and I do believe that the law should be changed so that it doesn’t matter

who—it is me, them, anybody—where the money comes from

should be visible to the public.

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. I think that is a very good answer.

I guess I would just close by saying I think making it more transparent and apparent to folks where advocates are coming from,

where they are getting their money, and where they are sending

their money, is something that I can certainly, 100 percent, sup-
78

port. Again, I think it is a little unfair of this hearing to point out

people who advocate for an environmental position and say that

they are somehow doing something different than what a lot of different advocates are for a variety of different positions. I can assure you, they are not. They are living by the rules as they currently exist. Corporations, people on both sides of this issue are

doing that, and I would hope in the interest of balance in terms

of how we approach this issue, that folks in the audience and on

this panel understand that if we want increased transparency so

we know where the money is coming from that influences issues,

we shouldn’t single out any one group. There are quite a few different ones who deserve in depth analysis to figure out where that

money is coming from, and I applaud, frankly, efforts like Mr.

Arnold’s to expose that, at least let people know what is going on,

but I don’t want to stop the process of democracy and folks being

able to advocate for positions that they believe in, even if we may

disagree with them. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Cannon, you are recognized for your

questions.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank the panel for being here today.

Mr. Lyall, in my district we have the new Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument that was done just 3 years ago, and

just in the last couple of months the Administration has come out

with its plan for that area and—surprise, surprise—90 percent of

the roads in that area have been—by the way, that is a 2 million

acre area—and 90 percent of the roads have been illegally shut

down, and that area now has as its only recourse the courts to sue

the Administration, which they are doing over that issue.

Ms. Capp, in my district I have the largest number of Native

Americans. I have the Ute Tribe and the Navajo Tribe in the southeast of the state—in the northeast is my Ute Tribe. And, Mr.

DeVargas, you mentioned the unemployment in the Vallecitos area.

The unemployment in our Native American area is about the same,

between 20 and 40 percent unemployment. And just last year—this

year, this cycle—the budgeting by the oil and gas drilling companies in that area plummeted from about a proposed $96 million to

virtually nothing. I think two wells will be drilled in that area

where 20 or 30 had been planned before.

So, when we talk about the pain that is being inflicted on rural

areas, it is not that we as public administrators have to do something about that, this Administration is causing the pain. I mean,

the pain wouldn’t exist unless there was an affirmative and aggressive action to do so.

About a year ago, Patrick Kennedy, who is the Chairman of the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, now says that we

who are friends of the Democratic Party have written off rural

America. The next day, the Minority Leader, Dick Gephardt, pointed out that he—that is, Patrick Kennedy—didn’t mean to say that.

Now, Mr. Gephardt didn’t say that Patrick Kennedy didn’t mean

what he said, he just pointed out that he didn’t mean to actually

say it because, in fact, that is, I think, the difference between parties at this point in time.
79

I might just point out one thing for the record. There is a difference between tax-exempt foundations that pump money into

public activity and private corporations that pay taxes. Normally,

I ask questions, I don’t get off on my soapbox in these circumstances, but let just add one other fact.

We are now going through a remarkable renaissance of individual responsibility and opportunity in America largely caused by

the Internet and the access that individuals have to information,

and I personally want to thank you, Mr. Arnold, for the answer to

your question, which Mr. Smith also agreed with, when you talked

about transparency. I have this great faith in the American public.

If they have access to information, they will make the right decisions. I don’t care how anybody attempts to influence anybody

about anything, I care about the hiding of those attempts. And perhaps now I can just shift into a question.

Can you give us a little background, Mr. Arnold, on the Heritage

Forest Campaign—that is, who initiated it, how was it set up, how

successful has it been, and why?

Mr. ARNOLD. Let me try to do that, Congressman Cannon. The

understanding that I have, according to the documents from Pew

Charitable Trusts and according to their Website, is that it is titled

a Pew Initiative, which tells me that it was the brainchild of Joshua Reichert, a single individual who is the Environmental Director

of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

He is typically the model of the ‘‘coalition’’. His whole way of

thinking is that you can’t just do things with one organization, you

must have a coalition. And in order to make a coalition work, as

the Environmental Grantmakers Cluster of Foundations discovered

to their dismay in 1992 when they tried a different model and it

didn’t work, you have to have a single money funneler, a fiscal

agent that can actually get on top of a bunch of other groups that

actually get a lot of the money, and tell them what to do. In other

words, the marching orders come from the top—in this case, Joshua Reichert—they go down to National Audubon Society, they go

from there to 12 organizations which, according to their own board

minutes of their own meeting of the National Audubon Society,

they say they are ‘‘supervising’’ 12 other environmental groups.

Now, I am not quite sure what the IRS would think about that—

one 501(c)(3) supervising other 501(c)(3)’s. Now, my board would

not allow me to be supervised by anybody, not for very long. I

would give notice that I didn’t work there anymore.

So, that is a very remarkable thing about what I found in their

minutes of their own Audubon Society Board meeting which, incidentally, you will find verbatim exactly as I copied them from their

own meetings, on page 10 of Power To Hurt.

Let me, if I may—I don’t know how much time I have here—it

says—and this is from Dan Beard, the man who was formerly in

the Clinton Administration. ‘‘There are 60 million acres of 1,000-

acre-plus plots in our National forests that are still roadless’’—and

a comment on that, they are in no such way roadless. They have

things a lot of people drive vehicles on, they just don’t qualify

under a very mushy definition that suits their political purposes for

what does it mean, a ‘‘road’’.
80

‘‘There is no hope of congressional action to preserve them as wilderness. Administrative protection is possible. We have raised the

issue’s visibility in the White House, but it is not enough, so we

did a poll using the President’s pollster. He sent results to White

House Chief of Staff—poll shows that Americans strongly care

about wilderness to the extent of favoring it over jobs. Even Republican men in inter-mountain states supported at the 50 percent

level. The Administration has said they will take some kind of action. We hope for an announcement from the President of some

kind of administrative protection. We probably won’t get all 60 million acres, but if we did it would represent the biggest chunk of

land protection since the Alaska Lands Act. The Pew Trusts is

pleased with the campaign so far. Second year funding will take it

to January 2001, $2.2 million for about 12 organizations under our

supervision’’—what is that about? ‘‘Outside magazine this month

has a good cover article. Our visibility and credibility among fellow

forest protection organizations has been raised. Comment from

John Flicker’’—he is the head of Audubon, that means that he

made this comment himself—‘‘This grant came to us because of

Dan Beard’s reputation and good name’’. Well, I didn’t say that, I

got that out of their board minutes.

OK. So I think that gives you the most thorough answer. Just

read their own documents and see what they are doing. The thing

about it is, you have to know where to look. The average person

who goes into Audubon’s Website couldn’t find that. Why not? Why

don’t we know about this stuff as it is going on? I want to know

who is trying to put all of my members out of business before and

while they are doing it, so I can do something that will counter it.

That is just not fair, and that is something that those transparency

laws certainly could do something about, fair notice.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. I note, Madam Chair, that

the light is not illuminated, but I suspect my 5 minutes have

passed, and so I yield back.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Cannon.

Mr. Udall is recognized for questions.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I initially

would just like to submit a statement and ask unanimous consent

to submit a statement for the record.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you. Mr. DeVargas, welcome and welcome to the entire panel. I would like to direct my questions primarily to Antonio DeVargas.

La Compania Ocho is not the first company to lumber in the sustained yield area, is that correct?

Mr. DEVARGAS. That is correct, Congressman Udall.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Could you tell me the company that was logging

in that area prior to when you set up?

Mr. DEVARGAS. Prior to us setting up, it was a corporation that

was a subsidiary of Hanson Industries, Ltd., and the name of it

was Duke City Lumber Company.

Mr. TOM UDALL. How would you differentiate your business, this

lumber operation, from the lumber operations of the corporations

that were your predecessors in the area?
81

Mr. DEVARGAS. They were a very large corporation. Hanson Industries, Ltd. is based in London. They had pretty much a colonial

mentality over the people there. They were very predatory in their

practices not only in terms of their employment practices over the

people there, but also in terms of how they did their lumbering.

There was strong opposition from the local community to their

methods and the extent of harvesting that was occurring and, in

fact, the local communities were consistently fighting Duke City

Lumber Company and the Forest Service.

Mr. TOM UDALL. And could you compare your approach—I think

you have stated the earlier actions of the other corporations, the

foreign corporations—how you approach this and what the reaction

of the local community is?

Mr. DEVARGAS. I believe that the local community being landbased and being rural and being from there and being vested in the

land is much more—I think we are better stewards, and I think

that we have a greater respect for the land because we cannot see

destroying the land of our ancestors. Our village, as many of them,

are 400 years old. The Native American villages are even older

than that. And there’s logging going on and timbering going on on

the reservations in New Mexico, and nobody is arguing with the

levels of harvest there, and it is because the people from there do

care about the land and the water and the air. Corporations from

outside the country or from outside the region don’t have that same

responsibility to the locals.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Now, Mr. DeVargas, you talk about land-based

and being there 400 years, and a lot of this is intertwined with the

land grants, is it not, the Spanish Land Grants and the land grant

issue in northern New Mexico?

Mr. DEVARGAS. That is correct, Congressman Udall.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Can you tell this Subcommittee about the important role the land grants have in the traditional lifestyle of New

Mexico’s Hispanic villages and local economies?

Mr. DEVARGAS. The land grants were the basis of community

survival. Without them, it was not possible for communities to survive. The sovereign of Spain, when we were under the sovereignty

of Spain, that government recognized that. When we were under

the sovereignty of Mexico, that government recognized that. Under

the sovereignty of the United States, that has not been recognized.

So, we are not in any position to develop our own economy based

on a sustainability for our villages.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Looking at the history of land grants in New

Mexico, how has your business and the community’s ability to support themselves been affected by what has happened to community

land grants in New Mexico?

Mr. DEVARGAS. The community land grants in New Mexico have

been swallowed up by either large corporations or the Federal Government. They no longer exist in fact. They exist in the people’s

consciousness, they exist in the people’s hopes and dreams, but in

fact they don’t exist, and this is what has rendered our community

so helpless.

Upon losing the land grants, basically what happened is our villages were condemned to the poverty levels that we now experience.
82

Mr. TOM UDALL. How were New Mexico’s community land grants

impacted by the way the United States implemented the Treaty of

Guadalupe Hidalgo?

Mr. DEVARGAS. The Treaty has never been implemented, Mr.

Congressman. I believe that the Treaty was violated before the ink

was dry.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Could you tell the Committee how that happened and what injustices were perpetrated on the people of northern New Mexico?

Mr. DEVARGAS. The acquisition of the land by the Federal Government and private individuals were done through chicanery, outright fraud, just by dispossessing people, even through violence.

There was a notorious organization that was based in Santa Fe

during the territorial days called the Santa Fe Ring. It consisted

of politicians, judges, and lawyers that just basically circumvented

the laws, and really rendered the Treaty invalid. It has never been

implemented. That Treaty has never been implemented. So, for the

people there it has been very difficult. It has been very difficult to

understand how a people can be discriminated in that manner, considering that in fact when the United States got its independence

from England, from Great Britain, it would not have been able to,

without the help of Spain. And, in fact, I have documents that

show that all of the Spanish holdings, all the people that were

under Spanish rule, were required to pay taxes to support the war

effort for the 13 Colonies of the United States. New Mexico was

very active in the Civil War and protecting the Union. Just about

every person that I know—in my family anyway, my great-grandfather fought in the First World War, my dad in the Second, my

relatives in the Korean, myself in Vietnam, my cousins in the Persian Gulf War and other areas. The Hispanic contribution to the

defense of this country is very, very well documented, and it just

seems very strange that we would have to defend treaties of the

U.S. Government in other countries when our Treaty has not been

recognized.

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. DeVargas. One of the things,

and I know you know it very well, is that Treaty said to the people

that decided to stay, the Treaty between Mexico and the United

States of America, that the people that decided to stay in the

United States—people were allowed to go back—but to stay in that

area, that the United States would take the affirmative action of

protecting their culture, protecting their property, and protecting

their rights and their language. And, in fact, as you have very eloquently stated, that has not happened, and it is a great injustice

that I think the people of northern New Mexico feel. I have taken

a bill that was passed through the House of Representatives the

last time around and introduced that identical bill on the anniversary of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and that bill is here in

the Congress. I believe it is subcommittee, and I would just ask the

Chair—I look forward to maybe working with you on that because

I think these two issues are very intertwined, the issue that the

panel has been asked to speak to today, and also this issue of the

land grants is one that I think is a big injustice that needs to be

corrected by the U.S. Government. Thank you, Madam Chair.
83

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Udall. That was a very

interesting line of questioning.

And so it is clear then, in your opinion, that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, agreed upon, but has not been honored

by this Government?

Mr. DEVARGAS. That is correct, Madam Chairman, but I would

like to go a little bit further and state that in my view the kind

of injustice that was perpetuated against the people under that

treaty, the same mentality that led to that is the same mentality

that is driving the elite groups to now not only discriminate

against Hispanics, but to discriminate against rural people in general, and I believe that many of the motives behind this is to disenfranchise rural people and make sure that the forests in the

United States, in the western part of the United States, become

playgrounds only for the rich.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Sherwood.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. DeVargas, if

I could continue in that line, and we will leave the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and go on to your settlement with the Forest Service in the suit of 1994. And I read that you were to be able to purchase 75 percent of the La Monga timber sale, and yet that has not

happened, and I understand that that was a suit against race discrimination, retaliation and preferential treatment for Duke City

Lumber Company, and you got a pretty good settlement, you

thought at the time, out of that suit. But what has happened recently that has kept you from reaping the benefits of winning that

suit in 1994?

Mr. DEVARGAS. Mr. Congressman, there have been several factors in that, not the least that we had to fight the Forest Guardians in two Federal courts in Arizona, one Federal in New Mexico,

and we had to go all the way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

in San Francisco. For a small corporation like ours consisting of

five people who had to mortgage their homes just to even found the

corporation, it cost us enormous sums of money. And obtaining financing for a small corporation such as that during a climate

where everything is litigated—in fact, La Monga sale has not all

been put up at this point, we have purchased two portions of that.

We have purchased 800,000 feet under La Monga whole timber

sale, and we have purchased 450,000 in the Bonito timber sale.

And we have invested in our lumber mill, which is a small lumber

mill, and we are going forward with it. However, the pipeline—

every sale is appealed, and it is appealed indefinitely, and it is all

very, very expensive to a small corporation such as us.

Mr. SHERWOOD. What was their basis for stopping—for suing in

court to have you stop your purchase of this standing timber, that

they didn’t want the timber cut, or what is their brief—what are

their arguments here? I realize that is a complicated—but in short

detail.

Mr. DEVARGAS. Basically, they say it is kind of like a ‘‘mantra’’—

it is the last 5 percent of whole growth timber. That is what they

say about every timber sale. They say it is the last 5 percent of old

growth timber in that area, which is just simply not true.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Describe the timber in that sale to us.
84

Mr. DEVARGAS. That sale consists of mixed conifer, Ponderosa

Pine, Douglas Fir, and white fir. It averages—the elevation is anywhere from 7200 feet to around 9800 feet. It is an area that has

been logged before. It was logged very lightly in the past, more

lightly than other areas. The prescriptions for logging on that sale,

I feel, is a responsible prescription. It is something that the community can live with, doesn’t feel it is an excessive harvesting.

There has been no clear cutting, none whatsoever.

Mr. SHERWOOD. It is a reasonably arid site, or if there is big timber it is not too arid. What are the problems that you have with

logging, do you have erosion problems or siltation?

Mr. DEVARGAS. I don’t think we have any of those problems, Mr.

Congressman. The arguments against logging La Monga is just

that they don’t want it logged, basically. It is kind of strange because we have a situation where they say they want us to do forest

restoration work, such as thinning—and this is part of the deception that happens all the time—but then they initiate a zero-cut

position. And our forests are overgrown. I mean, how do you justify

zero-cut with thinning of the forest? It doesn’t make sense to us.

There is also a 150- or 250-acre environmentalist retreat located

in that area, and so if the La Monga timber sale is put off-limits

to grazing and logging, it would automatically increase the size of

that particular retreat for environmentalists to 16,000 acres.

Mr. SHERWOOD. What was the story behind the acquisition and

sale of your wood processor?

Mr. DEVARGAS. The Forest Guardians came up with what they

considered their position to save the village of Vallecitos economically, and basically that position—it came out in the newspaper

that that is what Mr. Hitt and the Forest Guardians wanted to do.

And what it was really was a study that we had done ourselves.

And so they were able to acquire something like $38,000 for a wood

processor so that we could process firewood. They did that at the

same time that they were filing a lawsuit that stopped all firewood

cutting. And so we received a $38,000 wood processor that we

couldn’t use. And we were tied up in litigation with the Forest

Guardians over the firewood and the logging for almost 3 years.

That machine was rendered totally useless.

Mr. SHERWOOD. In your northern New Mexico villages, what

other means of livelihood is there? What is the other industry besides the forest-related industries?

Mr. DEVARGAS. It is either local government, city or county,

schools, the Los Alamos National Labs, and Santa Fe is about 85

miles away where there is some manufacturing, very limited. That

is about it.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you very much. I very much enjoyed

hearing the panel.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. I want to advise the members that we

have just been called to a 15-minute vote on one of the suspension

bills, and then after that there will be a 5-minute vote on the journal. And I also want to let you know that we will adjourn for 30

minutes when I recess the Committee, and then we will come back

and we will have a second round of questions.

I do want to ask Mr. Arnold before we go, you have a section in

your book on Undue Influence, a chapter entitled ‘‘Oh, God’’, and
85

it is very interesting. I think you have pretty well tied how the

trusts are even moving into the churches to try to influence them.

I am looking at page 101 where it indicates that the Pew Charitable Trusts donated $135,000 to Christianity Today, ‘‘to convene

a forum on population and consumption issues among leading

evangelical theologians and analysts, and to produce a special issue

of Christianity Today on global stewardship’’.

Now, Mr. Arnold, it appears that there is a strange connection

here. The Congress funds grants. These grants are acquired by

these trusts. Then the money is used to have an influence that is

a negative influence on our First Amendment, the separation—although it isn’t included, the word ‘‘separation’’ of church from

state—nevertheless, the purpose was to separate the influence of

Government in the churches, and it looks like the string is going

right into the churches. Am I reading that right?

Mr. ARNOLD. I believe so, Madam Chairman. I think the text

there gives you enough to go on. This was a very truncated version

of what I actually found, which was stacks and stacks of the ‘‘best

religion money can buy’’, is what it added up to. And, of course, the

foundations put piles of money in that isn’t documented in here

that, at your request, I could supply sheet after sheet.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Would you please do so?

Mr. ARNOLD. I will do that, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. We will recess the Committee right now

for 30 minutes, and we will be back at that time and we will begin

with questions from the Chairman and then go to the remaining

members. Thank you.[Recess.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. The Committee on Forest and Forest

Health will reconvene.

I would like to begin my line of questioning with Ms. Capp. Ms.

Capp, I wonder if you could put the map up again. Mike, if you

would do that. Thank you.

[Map retained in Committee files]

I was intrigued with this map although we didn’t get much detail

about the map. So, I wonder, for me and for the record, if you could

go over that in a little more detail.

Ms. CAPP. For the sake of being able to hear me, I am not going

to stand over there and point at it, Ron is going to point at it.

As I said, what this map basically illustrates is the plans that

are afoot that are really going to squeeze us out of Ferry County.

And I want to point out that this map is in process. It doesn’t even

contain everything that is coming at us. In fact, we have regulations and campaigns coming at us so fast we don’t really know

what to address first.

Basically, the left-hand side of the map is Ferry County. That

white space you see there in the middle, that is not Ferry County.

It is bordered by the Kettle River there on the right side. The yellow is proposed lynx range. The green is Forest Service land. The

little sections that you see sectioned off there—some of them have

numbers—are the Forest Service’s ecosystem management plans

that are being implemented which, when you look at what is being

proposed in those plans, they bear an incredible similarity to the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, only they
86

seem to be implemented now on a chunk-by-chunk basis, one watershed at a time.

You can’t see very well there, but the Columbia and the Kettle

River which flows through Ferry County—despite the fact that numerous biology experts and field biologists have told me that the

Kettle River is not, nor has it ever been, bull trout habitat, we still

have various people at the Federal and State level who would like

the Kettle River to be bull trout habitat, so that is another thing

that is threatening us. And one of the worst things about that is

that—well, just for example, Dave Smith of the University of British Columbia is one of the people that I interviewed when I did a

report on bull trout for the Kettle River Advisory Board, and Dave

told me that in no uncertain terms the Kettle River is not bull

trout habitat. Its natural characteristics are too low flow and warm

temperature. In fact, a hydrological report that was done some

years back for WYRA purposes states that the Kettle can exceed

16 degrees centigrade in the summertime with absolutely no

human use whatsoever, and 15 degrees is the maximum for adult

bull trout.

So, one of the reasons that is important is because we have plans

coming at us for endangered species or threatened species that

aren’t really even natural to our area. At any rate, the main point

that I would like people to take from that map—now you can’t see

the lower half—is Colville Indian Reservation, and that is about—

that portion of the county is about the same size as the top. The

county is about 4.6 million acres. Only 15 percent of that is private

property. And this is a natural resource producing community.

Those are the jobs that we have there.

If we are squeezed out of the National Forest, there is not going

to be any employment—maybe Job Corps will still be out there, although I don’t know who would want to work there, but the rest

of the employment in the county is Department of Social and

Health Services, the school district, the county government—which,

by the way, now is only open 4 days a week. So, if there is no other

employment in the area, the school is going to go. In fact, one of

the ways that all this has impacted us is that up in Curlew, the

Curlew School District where I live, we have under 300 students,

kindergarten through 12th grade, very small school. Last year, we

had to lay off four full-time teachers. Our first grade teacher now

has 60 students. We have teachers who are now doing the best that

they can to teach subjects that never really were their forte. The

whole community is really suffering.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. That is quite amazing. You know, the

national environmental groups often say that our forests need to be

protected from development. Are forests in your area threatened by

development? And my second question is, is the lynx listed on the

endangered species list, or endangered?

Ms. CAPP. Not yet, but there is a big push to get it listed. That

is one of the things that is to frustrating about the massive

amounts of money that these groups have to do their PR and the

way that they can really twist the facts to get urbanites really to

vote and petition rural people into oblivion.

Their campaigns give the impression that our National Forests

are—when they use the word ‘‘development’’, what comes to most
87

people’s mind is that we have factories and industry and suburban

sprawl coming right up to the edge of these so-called ‘‘roadless’’

areas which, in fact, we don’t. I mean, in a county of only 7200 people, you can imagine there is not much of anything in the way of

building.

And the other thing is the way they carry on about development

and roads. People in the urban areas get the impression that we

have blacktop highways going through the National Forests and, of

course, the Forest Service would be frivolous to be trying to maintain things like that but, in fact, we don’t. What we have is a

bunch of little one-lane dirt roads. So, no, there is no development

threatening the National Forests in our area.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Ms. Capp.

At this time I would like to yield to Mr. Peterson for his questions. He had some questions he was concerned about.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Arnold, and anyone else who wants to, but I want to make

sure I understand what you are telling us. I haven’t had time to

read the book, but we have a picture here of large foundations like

the Pew Foundation, who join hands and fund large national organizations like the Audubon Society, and who somehow collaborate

with the Administration and the White House and the Vice President and the President’s Environmental Council sort of become the

War Room for these efforts. And they have ability, the Interior Department, the Department of Agriculture, EPA, smaller organizations like the BLM, the Forest Service and the Park Service all to

manage information and manipulate public policy. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. ARNOLD. Congressman Peterson, you have that exactly right.

I wouldn’t change that in any way.

Mr. PETERSON. OK. Well, I also know something that surprised

me here, I don’t have a good audit of it of where all it is, but I

know we spend a lot of money here in Washington funding organizations that have nothing to do with Government but who are very

related to associations and organizations that represent different

interest groups around the country, but they get a lot of Federal

money. At the State level, where I came from and have more expertise, that didn’t happen. We didn’t fund our opposition or those who

are promoting ideas.

Are you aware of how Government tax dollars gets into this mix,

too, besides the use of public offices where public policy is made?

Mr. ARNOLD. Yes, sir, I do. As a matter of fact, one of the chapters is called Zealous Bureaucrats, and it deals extensively with

that. The gist of it is that you can trace probably half a billion dollars in any given year, we suspect that there is probably four times

that—that is based on a guess of a reporter from the Boston Globe,

whom I respect quite well—$4 billion dollars we can’t find. We can

find about half a billion dollars, and it goes from groups like the

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service Foundation, which is a quasi-Governmental group which gives grants to

private environmental groups, some of which then come back and

lobby. They are primarily for improvement of infrastructure on National Wildlife Refuges, such detailed things as that.
88

On the other hand, you get grants from the EPA. Now, one of

the things I will give them credit for is there is a Website that anyone can access, that lists their grants. The catch is they don’t list

all of them and, in fact, they don’t list the most interesting ones,

which you have to have special software and a computer beyond a

desktop in order to access it, but the kind of money that we are

seeing going from EPA goes directly to very advocacy oriented

groups. It also gets back to them through the route of going to academics who see a particular issue—let us say, an air quality

issue—they will go to an M.D. studying children’s asthma syndromes, and then Carol Browner will, as the head of the EPA, use

that in testimony saying that we have to stiffen up the air quality

regulations—which, as a matter of fact, did happen. And there are

quite a few episodes of that nature documented.

We have also heard, but cannot confirm and would urge this

Committee do some investigation on it, that actually Mrs. Browner

was, in fact, hosting on a regular basis foundation funders in her

personal office, and telling them where they should be putting their

money. Like I say, I can’t verify that, I have that from a couple of

whistleblower types who are not quite brave enough to blow the

whistle, but that is something I think that should she be required

to testify for other things, that certainly needs to be brought up.

Mr. PETERSON. But are you aware of where—you did mention

several—but should we have a prohibition of tax dollars being utilized to fund any organization on any side of any issue? I mean,

somehow there should be a firewall from Government funding advocacy groups? Now, I guess the question I wanted to ask and it

slipped by me was, the Foundation, Fish and Wildlife Foundation,

is that all tax dollars or is that a blend?

Mr. ARNOLD. No, that is not. That is a combination of tax dollars

and private funders, so as I say, it is quasi-Governmental, so that

there was one person who became a board member under very unusual circumstances, who donated a million dollars to the Fish and

Wildlife Foundation. So, yes, private individual grants can go into

it, and a number have, as a matter of fact. So, it is a mix.

And to answer your first question, should there be a firewall, I

am certainly no legislator, but I have hired enough lawyers to

know that is a can of worms. I think that to go in that direction

probably would invite prohibitions that would probably hurt really

worthy causes. I think that protecting National Wildlife Refuges is

a good idea. Using them as a way to put people out of existence

is not a good idea. I am not able to see how you would differentiate

in a law which has to apply to everybody that wouldn’t really hurt

a lot of good things. So, that one needs a lot more thought than

I have given to it in order to be able to say, yes, you should do

something that prohibits tax-exempt organizations from using tax

money to lobby with. I don’t know how you would actually do that.

It would be nice to have that all visible and transparent, and

that, I think, the simple matter of public disclosure is probably—

for one thing, it would be a very popular issue. I can’t imagine any

citizen of the United States that likes things going on behind their

back that influences their lives as much as is documented in this

book.
89

And so public disclosure, I think, really is the way to go, rather

than strict prohibitions. Again, that is up to Congress, which is

why we are talking to you because we need your ideas and your

help as well as you getting ours. But I see the route into clarity

on this going through public disclosure. If we knew while they were

planning the Heritage Forest Campaign that they were going to do

it, that there was a fair notice requirement when any large coalition got together—now, stop and think of what this Pew thing was.

It was 12 groups working together. If those were for-profit groups,

they would all be in jail. That is a clear violation of the Sherman

Antitrust Act of 1890, to do that kind of thing if you are a for-profit. And I am not sure that perhaps something of that nature about

working in combines, or illegal—you know, price fixing for the forprofits—how about policy fixing? I don’t know if that even means

anything under our Constitution, but there has to be some investigation of this coalition model. Nothing happens except in coalitions anymore, in the environmental movement, or any kind of

what they call ‘‘progressive’’, more left-leaning type of movement,

and what to do about that, I think, is let us lift the rock and ‘‘let

the sun shine in’’.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, the frustration I have had is that they seldom want a public discussion. It is a mass manipulation of information, to then manipulate public policy, and it is a huge—it is

like McDonald’s selling hamburgers. I mean, that is what it is

about.

Earlier we talked about the sprawl issue, and somebody just

handed me here—a polling company talks ‘‘sprawl is now a breadand-butter community issue like crime’, said Jan Schaffer, Executive Director of the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, which sponsored the polling. Americans are divided about the best solution for

dealing with growth, development and traffic congestion’’. Well, I

think part of our argument needs to be, and part of the discussion

needs to be, that if we stopped squashing rural America, they

wouldn’t be moving to the cities to cause the sprawl.

Mr. ARNOLD. Well, Congressman Peterson, let me also add to

that, what in the name of Heaven are these foundations doing giving money to the media? Why is there such a thing as the Pew

Center for Media? Are they buying newspaper reporters?

If you take a look, in fact, in this book on page 99 and 100, I

documented that question. Here is a Public Media Center got

$300,000 from Pew Charitable Trusts, the Foundation for American

Communications got $75,000 from W. Alton Jones Foundation, the

Center for Investigating Reporting got $105,000 from the

Schumann Foundation, on and on and on. There is so much money

being poured into the media to assure proper environmental reporting, whatever that is, and you can imagine what their viewpoint

is.

Why are the media taking the money? I don’t know that. And I

do know—I worked on a newspaper——

Mr. PETERSON. I think they will take anybody’s money. They

don’t have to stand for election.

Mr. ARNOLD. That is true.

Mr. PETERSON. Of course, the number of people that watch the

major media today is pretty small, in comparison, and I think it
90

is because of their spin, not because—if they reported—I think the

success of Fox News is very much ‘‘We report, you decide’’ has

caught on because the media doesn’t report, they tell you what portion they want you to know, and I think we all know that.

I want to commend you for your work, all of you, for speaking

out, but I guess, in conclusion, my biggest concern as a Member of

Congress—when I was in State Government for 19 years and I had

a business for 26, so I come here with some experience—is the immenseness and the inability to put your arms around departments.

I mean, it is like—I used to kid when I was in State Government

about dealing with the Federal Government was like dealing with

a foreign country, and I have been 4 years—and I am a bureaucracy fighter, I always was at the State level—but here it is like you

can’t get at them. I mean, they are huge. They are almost nameless, faceless agencies that have—and we here in Washington have

almost no process in the regulatory process, and that is lawmaking

without public discussion, and it is what people fought and died for

a long time ago, but the regulatory process in Washington is totally

out of control, and Congress has almost no ability to influence it,

or at least doesn’t, and I don’t think anybody can argue with that.

At the State level in Pennsylvania, we had a very effective agency that helped committee chairs and committees deal with regulations that were inappropriate, but you will find that presidents

quickly find out that it is easier to regulate and write rules than

it is to pass law because when you pass law you have to win a public debate. And, unfortunately, many of the problems we are fighting are because we have totally left go. Since Ronald Reagan, no

one has had any influence on the regulatory progress, they have

been totally free to write law and set policy without a public discussion, and we will pay down the road. Thank you very much.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Peterson, I appreciate

your line of questioning.

Your book is very fascinating, Mr. Arnold, and I wanted to—I

have a lot of questions to ask you. I am going to ask you some now

on the record, and then I will be submitting more questions to you

in writing.

It has always been just a strong tenet of the free-market system,

freedom of enterprise, that when a company operates in their own

self-interest, it is also to the self-interest and the betterment of

those who work for them, those who can purchase their product,

and so forth.

In looking at those corporations’ own self-interest, who are behind the Pew, Mellon, Alton W. Jones Foundations, all of those,

why are they doing this? I mentioned in earlier comments that it

was a growing metastasis, it is dark and ugly. What is their selfinterest here? Have you been able to find anything?

Mr. ARNOLD. Well, Madam Chairman, unfortunately, the answer

is yes, I have. Probably the most obvious answer is if you have a

large corporation in something that we have all been talking about,

timber, and they are, let us say, a big landowner that has fee land

that they own, clear title, and they have very little that comes off

Federal lands in the way of timber supply for their mills, but surrounding them are all kinds of middle-size and smaller competitors

who go into the National Forest, take timber out, and compete ef-
91

fectively with that—sealed bid and all kinds of things. Now, if you

were one of those large corporations, what would you do if you suddenly found that somebody was shutting down all of your competition on Federal lands? If I was a CEO, I would be like Harry

Merlo, who once told the New York Times about 10 years ago,

‘‘Why should I pay money for a lawsuit to fight the spotted owl

issue? All the court has done is given me a legal monopoly’’.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. And Harry Merlo was the CEO——

Mr. ARNOLD. Harry Merlo said that out loud. He was the CEO

of Louisiana Pacific Corporation at the time, which is a very large

private landowner, and in a business sense he was absolutely right

for his stockholders. Why should he spend money on something

that is only going to put his competitors out of business? But, you

see, that is one of those double-edged swords.

Now what do you do if the free market says ‘‘I don’t care if you

regulate the other guy out of business, and I will give money’’, as

we are seeing many large corporations giving money to the Nature

Conservancy which buys private land and then sells it to the Federal Government at a markup, to the Wilderness Society even, to

any kind of environmental group that advocates the shutdown of

all resource extraction industry on Federal lands. What are we to

make of those corporations doing that other than there is probably

some competitive advantage in it for them. They are not stupid. I

can’t imagine that is all out of altruism. I am sure they have figured it out.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. So that is how the dots connect, and

that is why you made the comment about the Sherman Antitrust

Act, it is creating a monopoly.

Mr. ARNOLD. It is, Madam Chairman. I think that what is sauce

for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why should not there be a

nonprofit equivalent of that, only how would you do it without

harming churches, the Civic Opera, hospitals? You see, that is

where I am really hesitant to suggest such a thing, because it

would hurt good people. There may possibly be a constitutional way

to deal with those abuses, but it is the dilemma of a large society.

There is no way you can run one without a bureaucracy, so you

can’t fight bureaucracy per se, you have to fight bureaucratic

abuse. And how you target a law that precisely so that it does not

hurt good people but stems abuses is a question I think Congress

needs to tackle seriously.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. I am still trying to connect the dots on

some of the National Monuments. For the record, can you advise

this Committee as to how the foundations may or may not have—

but probably may—have benefited from the Utah National Monument designation?

Mr. ARNOLD. They created it, essentially. The Southern Utah

Wilderness Society, in the person of Ken—and I don’t know how to

pronounce his last name, it is in the book—took Katy McGinty, several years before the designation of Staircase Escalante National

Monument, to the area and spent 2 weeks with her convincing her

that it ought to become wilderness, which was not within her

power as Chairman of the President’s Council on Environmental

Quality to do, she couldn’t deliver that, but she said, ‘‘Let us see

what we can do about a National Monument’’.
92

About the same time, a memo came from the Office of the Secretary of the Interior to the Solicitor, who is the head lawyer of the

agency, asking to analyze what you needed to do in order to declare

a National Monument without any environmental examination,

with no public debate about the environmental consequences. This

was the Clinton Administration.

Why would the Clinton Administration, with Al Gore sitting in

the second seat, ever want to do something without going through

an environmental review? The only answer is, they wanted to act

in secrecy. And in this case, they wanted to do what they did without anyone knowing it. As a matter of fact, the Resources Committee subpoenaed all of the resulting e-mails back and forth between the Interior Department and Katy McGinty’s shop, including

of her 12 or so assistants, about how are we going to fake up a letter so that the conditions that the Solicitor was told can be met.

Those conditions were these: In order to declare a National Monument without having to go through environmental review, it had to

come from the President’s Office. Well, the idea for this one had

come from the Secretary of Interior’s Office which, if it does, becomes subject to the requirements of NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

And so Katy McGinty and all of her people spent nearly a year

passing notes back and forth, trying to fake up a letter from the

President of the United States to Secretary Babbitt saying, ‘‘Hey,

I have this great idea, and would you do this for me, and tell me

all about this area that should be a National Monument’’. Under

those circumstances, if that was really the case, the President has

the authority to, in essence, deputize the Secretary of the Interior

to become part of the White House so it doesn’t have to go through

environmental review.

So, in faking up this letter, which went through, I think, three

or four drafts from the e-mails that your Committee was able to recover, it is very clear that they were lying through their teeth all

the time. They knew exactly what they were going to do, and this

Ken Raitt—I think is how you say his name, he was the person

from the Southern Utah Wilderness Foundation—was back there

with Sierra Club support, with all kinds of other support, some of

which I do know and some of which I don’t, from foundations and

other environmental groups, pushing publicly that ‘‘there needs to

be a great land legacy kind of program coming from the Clinton

Administration because we are really annoyed at you because you

supported the Timber Rider, President Clinton, and so we may

leave you hanging in this next vote’’, which was the election of

1996. Clinton and Gore were both standing for re-election. The environmentalists were disaffected, and it looked like they were simply going to walk away and let them suffer the consequences.

So, what do you do to bring them back? Of course you declare

National Monuments, which conveniently, not too long before the

election, finally did happen, without the slightest knowledge of

anyone in the State Delegation of Congress from Utah. They had

no idea this was going to happen. They weren’t even invited to the

ceremony, which wasn’t even held in Utah, it was held in Arizona

at the Grand Canyon, and a whole bunch of—hundreds of environ-
93

mentalists showed up, who knew when to be there, and where to

be, but nobody else in the country did.

So they acted in secrecy. They told flat-out lies. And I haven’t

seen that published anywhere except in this book and in the Resource Committee’s report. So, maybe media don’t think that is

news, but when something that corrupt goes on in an Administration, I think it is news.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. So to connect the dots from the foundations, it comes from the foundations into the Southern Utah Wilderness Society and from the foundations into the Sierra Club, who

were working with and had prior knowledge of—working with Katy

McGinty and had prior knowledge of the final execution by the

President of a National Monument.

Mr. ARNOLD. Yes, they did.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. A lot of that land is land that was used

by cattlemen, some of it was school endowment lands, but there

was a huge, rich coal deposit.

Mr. ARNOLD. And oil and natural gas.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Right. Can you connect the dots from

those who are behind the foundations to those who are now managing to control that resource?

Mr. ARNOLD. Well, you get back to the law of supply and demand. If you know where your deposits of those minerals and valuable products are, and they are on private land or they are in another country where you can reach them, and somebody in Government wants to reduce the supply by locking up in some kind of designation where you can’t gain access to it, what do you think is

going to happen to the price of those products and the value of the

remaining land?

So, again, you don’t see many corporations crying the blues over

that because now their own private holdings are worth more.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Ron, I want to get back to you. I do

want to take care of a little bit of business here for Jeff Lyall.

Jeff, I just read a letter that you wrote, a very beautiful letter,

and you have asked that it be submitted to the Committee and

made a part of the permanent record.

Mr. LYALL. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Without objection, that will be ordered.

Mr. LYALL. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Ron, we have heard how rural communities are impacted by the large foundations. Do these effects

spread beyond the rural areas, and how does it affect the country

as a whole?

Mr. ARNOLD. It is a complicated question. I could give you the

typical economist answer on the one hand and on the other hand,

but I think in this issue there is no other hand. The answer is simple and straightforward. If you remove and destroy all resource extraction from the United States, what does that mean for where we

get our supply of everything we can’t get here? It has to be gotten

elsewhere.

We get most of our bananas—I don’t know of anyplace in the

United States that grows a lot of bananas—we get them from

somewhere else. We haven’t fought banana wars for a while. But

there is a lot of petroleum setting in the United States you can’t
94

get at and, as I recall, we had a little war over oil not too long ago,

Desert Storm.

If we push timber offshore, if we push mining offshore, if we

push farming offshore, if we push ranching offshore, food, clothing

and shelter—you know, even environmentalists get grumpy when

they miss dinner.

So, I think are we going to be forced into facing something like

timber wars with some other country to get their trees because we

won’t cut ours? It is not inconceivable. I don’t say that that is what

is going to happen, but if it happened with oil, why couldn’t it happen with all the other things they are shutting out.

So, is it affecting the Nation as a whole? Possibly, we don’t know.

I mean, my crystal is no better than yours, but as far as immediate

impacts that you can see now, if you take people out of the country—you know that old saying, ‘‘you can take the boy out of the

country, but you can’t take the country out of the boy’’—well, when

you take the boys and girls out of the country, you put them in the

cities. Now, what does that do to concentration of population?

We have seen in the State where I live, even an attempt to address some of the urban problems by sending welfare families into

rural areas because the State Government seemed to be able to

think, well, how do you help rural areas? You send them urban

things. Well, that is not the answer at all. You stop preventing

them from doing rural things, like cutting trees and growing cows

and food and other incidental things like that.

I think that a lot of people in urban areas simply haven’t ever

lived on the land. They have lost their roots not just to nature like

the environmentalists claim, but to agriculture which grows all

their food, to mining from which if it doesn’t come from the ground

it comes out of the water, so you have to have minerals to make

fishhooks even when you get stuff out of the water. So, it is a matter of, like one engineer once told me, ‘‘You know the problem with

people in cities is they don’t understand that everything—that

things are made of stuff, and stuff comes out of the ground’’.

Now, I don’t know any simpler way to say it, but that struck me

because it is so on-target, and it is so much like the problem that

you see in urban areas—and this is not a joke. There was a farm

poster contest in San Francisco, and one little boy submitted a

poster that said ‘‘We don’t need farmers where I live because there

is a Safeway right across the street’’. That is the kind of mentality

you are up against, and yet when they see people coming in from

the country—oh, that is a bunch of rubes and hicks, and we don’t

like them, and they make crowding and urban sprawl has become

a big deal’’—well, who is doing it? It is the people who

thoughtlessly support the depopulation and the rural cleansing

that environmentalists are promoting and advocating and actually

producing with the help of the Administration. Long-winded answer to a short question, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

I wanted to ask Mr. DeVargas, what level of funding do the environmental groups have in your area, and how does it compare to

the funding for the concerns that you represent?
95

Mr. DEVARGAS. I know that they have about a million and a half

dollars as of the last funding cycle that I had a chance to see, and

we don’t get anything. So, the comparison is really striking.

As a former serviceman, one of the concerns that I have, that Mr.

Arnold kind of alluded to, is that some of this stuff could really

lead to some kind of danger to the country’s security. If you kill the

mining outfit, even just sinking a new shaft could take 5 years. If

international shipping were to be disrupted by a serious war and

we were totally dependent on all our raw products from somewhere

else in order to fight a war, I think our national security is also

at stake in a lot of these activities, and that is how I feel about

it in terms of a threat to all of us. But in terms of the funding that

we get for our activities, it is almost nonexistent.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. I wish my colleagues could have heard

that answer. Can you tell us the story behind the acquisition and

what you did, the sale of your wood processor, and now you have

a new piece of equipment? I think you have already put that in the

record, haven’t you?

Mr. DEVARGAS. Yes, I have.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Tell me the history of the Mexican spotted owl in your area.

Mr. DEVARGAS. There is none. There hasn’t been any spotted

owl. I believe in Santa Fe in the early 1800’s, they were able to

find one. In Taos, New Mexico, they said that they thought they

had heard one. In the Hicorea area of northwestern New Mexico,

they found two. They killed one of them to study it. That is the history there.

Now, I understand there are spotted owls in southern New Mexico. I don’t know what the populations are, but in the northern part

of the State where I live, there are none. There are no spotted owls.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. What kind of impacts have the listing

of the spotted owl had on your people?

Mr. DEVARGAS. Well, there have been a lot of mill closures. The

cattlemen are very severely impacted. The access to the natural resources—it is not just the listing of the spotted owl—I mean, the

assault on the community is really broad. It is not just like the

spotted owl. When the spotted owl loses its credibility because the

biology doesn’t sustain it, then they will go to the willow flycatcher,

and when that doesn’t work, when science reveals that the real

threat to the willow flycatcher is not the cattle, but the cowbirds,

then they go on to something else. And, really, what I see happening over there is just taking the people off the land. That is the

real priority.

Right now, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest

Service have enormous amounts of money to purchase land in the

riparian areas. For us, what that does in terms of the impact on

our county, it is manyfold. For one thing, it continues to take away

our tax base, the people’s tax base. I mean, we have numerous wilderness areas in New Mexico, quite a few, and they are underutilized because, as mentioned earlier, people just—there is not that

many people who are going to walk up there. Just in my area,

there is probably over a million acres just in our area. There is the

Pecos Wilderness, there is the San Padre Park, there is Wheeler
96

Peak, there is Bisty Badlands, Bandolier, and it just goes on and

on.

Between the National Parks, the Monuments, pretty soon there

is not going to be any land to support a tax base, and that affects

our schools in the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program because our

county receives—most western counties that are surrounded by

Federal land receive 25 percent of the revenues that they get in

payment in lieu of taxes. Well, recreation doesn’t bring us anything

in lieu of taxes. The revenue from hunting and fishing licenses,

they don’t go to the counties, those go to the State Game Commission.

So, whenever you don’t have grazing and you don’t have logging

or any kind of extractive industries, you have no payment in lieu

of taxes. When 70 percent of the land is in Federal hands and you

don’t get payment in lieu of taxes, your county’s budget is just really bad.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Well, Mr. DeVargas, I want to thank

you for coming all the way out here to deliver your testimony. I

want to thank all of the witnesses for their fine testimony and coming so far. Ms. Capp, you came clear across the country. Mr. Lyall,

you came in, too, thank you very much. And, Mr. Arnold, I want

to thank you.

Before I close the hearing, I want to begin with Mr. Lyall, and

ask you to respond briefly to one final question for me. What is the

most important thought that you want left with this Committee

and on the permanent record?

Mr. LYALL. I think, ma’am, we just, like all the witnesses here—

people—how can I say this, how would I like to—people are on the

bottom of the totem pole when the environmental organizations,

the Forest Service policy, when you look at all the policies, people

are on the bottom of the totem pole. And why I say that, I deal

with a gentlemen back home, they offer me a lot of excuses and

they will tell me things like resource preservation. And what that

means is that dirt, in their eyes, is more important than the quality of lives of millions of people.

I am here trying to represent and trying to improve the quality

of life for millions of people who are already behind the 8-ball to

start with, and dirt is given more consideration than that. And that

is why I have a problem with that. And back home where I am

from, I know a family—who wishes to remain anonymous—but

they have a 17-year-old daughter with cerebral palsy, and they just

got down—I think it took them over 2 years—a big fight with the

Forest Service and some Virginia State Land as well. They gave

these people an awful time just so they could get access for their

daughter to use a motorized golf cart so that she could get into the

outdoors around their house. She lived in the middle of some Forest Service land and there were some roads on it that they wanted

to be able to take their daughter on. What is the big hurt? The

road is there. Let them use it. And they gave these people, I mean,

an awful time. It is really a shame what they did to them. And that

just comes down to when resources, things like—well, they are important, I will give them their place—but when those things take

precedent over the quality of people’s lives, I don’t think there is

any excuse for that.
97

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Lyall.

Mr. Arnold, what final thought would you like to leave with the

Committee?

Mr. ARNOLD. Madam Chairman, I would like our country to wake

up and realize what is being done to them by this ‘‘iron triangle’’

of wealthy foundations, grant-driven environmental groups, and

zealous bureaucrats. Simply understanding that will do more to

dry up that influence and to put it in a proper perspective and to

reduce it to a manageable level, I think, than just about anything

else.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Ms. Capp?

Ms. CAPP. Well, there are basically two things that I would like

to say. The first is something that I would like minority people and

Native Americans in particular to understand, and that is just as

these groups use certainly animal species as what they call ‘‘flagship’’ species, they use Native Americans as ‘‘flagships’’ species.

And this sounds outrageous, but I am going to say it because I believe it—after seeing the billions and billions of dollars that these

people have access to, I believe that they could have ended the

problem with the Hopi removal a long time ago, had they wanted

to, but I believe that the Hopi served as a great ‘‘flagship’’ species

for them to rally other Native Americans around, to get them to

fight, in particular, mining, which if we abandon environmentally

responsible mining here, we are going to be getting our mined

products from other countries where mining may not be done responsibly. So that is one thing that I really want to be looked at,

how minority people are being used against one another and

against their neighbors.

The other thing is that what I see happening now is it is currently manifesting what I clearly see as genocide against rural people in general. That is what is manifesting now. But I believe that

down the road, if this trend continues, it is going to result in the

economic devastation of this country, which of course will mean the

devastation of our security. It is very important to me that this

huge group of environmental grantmakers make their investment

portfolios visible. It is hard to imagine that they are not somehow

profiting from this.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms.

Capp.

Mr. DeVargas.

Mr. DEVARGAS. I guess the most important thing that I would

like to come out of here is that it doesn’t matter if you are a rural

dweller with a limited education and walk around in dirty blue

jeans because you work in the woods or with cattle, or if you are

a Native American and dress a little bit different. What I would

like to see is the end of the demonization of people.

Whenever people are demonized, to me, that is a prelude to a

war, to being able to allow mass society to have no empathy. So,

I just think that the leastest of us should be treated the same as

the ones with the mostest of us.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Very, very well said.

In closing, I again want to thank you and express my deep gratitude to you for the investment that you have made in at least ex-
98

posing this issue, this problem, and we have made great strides forward just in your willingness to expose the issue.

I am still baffled, and I will continue to search for the reason

that the grantmakers who get together and make plans for the

policies of ultimately negatively impact rural communities and

human lives. I keep thinking that they do operate in their own selfinterest, we know that, whether it is for good or whether it is for

not so good, but I have to ask what is their self-interest because

the forests are being destroyed. It is like wanting to take the car

and they shut the car down and take the keys away and run the

car out of gas, they are not going to be able to start that car again.

It is like killing the goose that laid the golden egg while the golden

egg is still being laid, and the golden egg is the American economic

engine that has thrived so well because of mutual respect for

human beings, people who could live together in peace and respect.

The dehumanization of the people is a very appropriate term because that is exactly what is happening. What is frightening is if

people can get together and plan policies that impact humans without a care in the world for that human being.

So, like John Adams said, this form of government was put together to be run by people who are lawful and moral people, and

when we lose that kind of integrity, this is what has happened.

I still think that because people collude at the grantmakers’

meetings and various other meetings, because they use the kind of

power that they do, because they involve Government, that there

is a huge civil rights case there, or a huge RICO case there. And

even if the case were put together, this legal system, judicial system, has got to develop the judicial will to right this wrong. And

I just pray to God that this judicial system has the kind of will that

it had when it passed the Sherman Antitrust Act.

So, this will not be the end of my hearings on this issue. The

Committee will continue to investigate, ask for more congressional

investigations, asking for transparency reporting in actions by

these grantmakers is a proper course. I will do my best to influence

leadership along this line. I would ask that you work in your communities, to impress your Congressmen individually along this line.

Openness in Government is so vitally important.

So, with that, I want to remind you that the record will remain

open for ten working days, should you wish to add anything to your

testimony or add any amendments to your written testimony,

please work with my Committee staff, feel free to do so.

I will be submitting questions in writing to you. With that, again

I want to thank you, and this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional correspondence follows:]
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106