[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 23, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H21-H27]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1500
QUESTIONING CREDIBILITY OF FEDERAL STUDIES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to be back here with my
colleagues. There are a number of different issues that we face in this
upcoming year.
One of the issues that I want to talk about this afternoon, and I am
going to talk about a number of different things, but one of the things
that is very important to me is the credibility of Federal studies. I
want to give all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle a very sad
example of evidence that has been planted, planted evidence, just like
in a criminal case where a police officer goes into the home of a
suspect and plants a bag of marijuana. It is an effort to lie. That is
what it is. It is lying about the evidence. That is exactly what has
happened.
On a Federal study that was recently undertaken on three separate
occasions, we had Federal employees who planted evidence in an effort
to alter the result of a study involving an endangered species, the
lynx. Let me go into a little more detail on the facts and let my
colleagues determine for themselves, is this the way that we ought to
run a so-called unbiased, fair study? And you ask the question and you
answer the question: Should biologists, who have an agenda, go in and
be involved and be allowed to make the decisions or be the ones who
handle the evidence when they have obviously a biased agenda as to how
that study ought to turn out?
The facts are this. In this country we undertook years ago the
Endangered Species Act. It is an important act. It does a lot of
important things. But as any act that has been enacted into law, there
is always somebody who finds abuse, and there are always serious
questions and questions as to whether or not what the intentions of
that act really were. Under the Endangered Species Act, we look out
there for species, whose species are threatened or they are endangered.
As we see those species, we go out and do studies. Or if we think
species exist, we go out and we do studies to protect their habitat, to
protect the area in which they live; we have actually seen one or two
successful programs out of the Endangered Species Act; for example, the
bald eagle. The bald eagle, that species and the preservation of that
species, was approached with credible science.
Science is an important part of the preservation of these species.
The science that is put forward must be credible. It has got to be
truthful. You lose credibility regardless on which side of the aisle
you are on, regardless of which side of the issue you are on, you lose
credibility if you plant evidence. You lose credibility if you lie. You
cannot do that. You have got to be truthful. Regardless of what those
results of that study come out to be, you must be truthful.
Here is what happened. We had seven people involved. Several of those
people were employees of the Federal Government. They were scientists.
They were biologists. They were professionals. As chairman of the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, which oversees the
responsibility of this and answers to the full Committee on Resources,
as chairman of that committee, we depend very heavily upon the
assessment and the findings of these biologists. These people are hired
as professionals. These people are hired with academic credentials.
Unfortunately, in this case we had some biologists who had a
different agenda. We had some scientists who had a different agenda. We
had some wildlife State employees who had a different agenda. They were
so driven by their agenda that they felt it was necessary to plant
evidence. What evidence did they plant? One of the endangered species
which we are looking very carefully at, we are determining whether it
should be listed as endangered and what areas it should be listed as
endangered, is the lynx. It looks very much like your household cat,
bigger, more like a bobcat. In fact, the species is related to the
bobcat, the lynx and the bobcat.
What happened was these scientists and these biologists, these are
your employees, they work for us, for the Federal Government. They work
for the people of this Nation. They do our work, to go out and
determine what are the facts--just the facts, ma'am--what are the
facts. These biologists were assigned to undertake a lynx study in two
forests to determine whether or not there was any kind of proof of the
habitat of lynx in these particular areas. This is very controversial,
because if lynx were found to exist in these areas, very severe
conditions are placed upon these forests.
[[Page H22]]
Very severe conditions, restrictions on use. For example, if you had a
ski area, my district in Colorado has all the ski areas in Colorado. If
you had a lynx found on a ski area, you could shut the ski area down.
You could shut down all the timber industry. You could shut down bike
riders, mountain bikers. You could shut down people on the river. You
could virtually shut the entire thing down for hundreds, maybe
thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of square miles.
So finding the evidence of these things is a very critical element in
our assessment to determine whether or not these severe restrictions
should be put into place.
What do these biologists do? What do these Federal Government
employees who have a fiduciary relationship to the people for whom they
work, which are the people of the United States of America, what do
they do? They go out, they secure some lynx hair and they plant lynx
hair in different spots in the forests. Then they go out and, oh, they
discovered the lynx hair that they planted and they submit that to the
lab for the lab to determine whether or not it is lynx hair. They
planted the evidence. That is exactly what they did. Their full intent
was for that study to conclude that lynx existed in these forests, and
therefore the natural consequence of that finding was that restrictions
would be placed on these forests.
How did we find out about this? How did we find out about the lynx?
The way we found out about it, we had a whistleblower. It is not
because these biologists came forward and said, look, as they are now
saying, all we really wanted to do was test the laboratory. Let me ask
you, how credible would you find a police officer who planted evidence
in a suspect's house and later on in the courtroom said, ``Well, the
only reason I planted evidence was to see whether the crime lab could
determine that I planted it and that the suspect really didn't have
that bag of marijuana. That is why I did that.'' How credible would you
find that?
How credible do we find these biologists' story that the whole reason
they planted this lynx hair in the forests was to test the laboratory?
In fact, their lies, their planting of evidence, has hurt the
credibility and endangers the fundamental honesty of the National Lynx
Survey. I have had people that are very active environmentalists that
are on fire about this. It hurts their cause. It hurts everybody's
cause to have Federal employees go in and plant evidence. It is like a
bad cop. Who suffers the most from bad cops? Sure, the suspect, but
good cops. Good cops suffer when they have got a bad cop. Good
biologists suffer when you have got a bad biologist, biologists who
will plant information with the full intent to provide misleading
information, to sway the conclusion of a supposedly verifiable study.
This is very, very damaging, what has occurred.
I note that my good colleague from the State of Arizona, a very
active member on the committee, very involved in this revelation that
has come up as a result of a whistleblower, by the way, not the
biologists coming and telling us, telling the lab, oh, by the way, we
were just testing the lab. As a result of somebody who was leaving the
government, retired, on the day of their retirement they could not live
with it anymore, they revealed to the Forest Service, hey, you know
what, we kind of cheated a little, we planted lynx hair out there in
the forest so that the laboratory would say that there was evidence of
lynx habitat.
By the way, do you know what the Forest Service did? If you were a
cop, you would be in jail, by the way. What the Forest Service did was
simply take these biologists off that particular study, will not give
the names of these biologists, and gave them counseling, counseling for
this kind of an offense that undermines the entire credibility of the
National Survey.
Back to my colleague from Arizona, I appreciate the fact that he has
joined me today and I intend to yield him time to further discuss what
the ramifications of planted evidence on the National Lynx Survey are.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona such
time as he may consume.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado who has
taken a leading role in this, and this should be of concern to every
American, for what has been perpetrated on the American people can
accurately be called biofraud.
People of good will can disagree on land use policy. People of good
will can have different approaches to conservation and the environment.
But always and forever, Mr. Speaker, the standard should be sound
science.
I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for leading our
subcommittee and as we serve together on the Committee on Resources, I
look forward to hearings, but I think it only fair to put on notice
those who would coddle a criminal element. This is not misguided
behavior simply cured by counseling. This is not something that should
remain confidential. Indeed, if there is another lament I have, it is a
curious concern that some in government do not believe they are
accountable to constitutional officers who are sent here to do the
people's business.
Mr. Speaker, I would put those people with those misguided notions on
notice today that I will work with my subcommittee chairman and I will
work with the chairman of the full committee and I will work with this
full House, if need be, if there are those who continue to stonewall
the truth, I believe, quite reasonably, quite rationally, that we
should bring people in under oath to the committee and if they continue
to stonewall, this Congress should hold those people in contempt. I say
that not in a reflex of rage but in a calm, sober-minded fashion,
because if we allow this kind of abuse to continue in our system, even
as we lament what happens in stories of high finance, to pension funds,
even as we attempt with the various committees of jurisdiction in this
Congress to get to the bottom of business and accounting corruption, so
too does this Congress have a responsibility to the American people,
for their quality of life, for the true ascertainment of the biological
integrity of the flora and fauna in our various national forests and
the people of Colorado and Arizona and all of our States who love the
land and make a living off the land as true stewards and true
conservationists. This crime of biofraud should not go unnoticed,
should not go unpunished.
I salute my colleague from Colorado because he understands with his
background in law enforcement and the law and with a good dose of
western, and let me enlarge that, American common sense and Yankee
ingenuity, that we need to get to the bottom of this on behalf of all
the American people, put a stop to biofraud, again amplify and adopt a
notion of sound science and its application when it comes to something
as crucial and as precious as our environment.
{time} 1515
I appreciate the presumption of innocence for those who it is
believed have committed a crime, but, again, I would reiterate to this
House, to cover this up in some sort of victimology and saying there,
there, counseling is fine, is in itself misfeasance and malfeasance of
the stewardship of the land and the basic trust this government and its
citizens deserve.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I might
add that I, too, agree with the gentleman about presumption of
innocence in regards to whether or not a crime has taken place.
But I should note that there is no presumption of innocence because
these parties have made an admission of guilt as far as misdoing in the
responsibilities and the fiduciary duties of their job, as the
gentleman knows.
This is not an allegation we are making from the House floor about
some biologists at the Forest Service. I know on the House floor
allegations are made or that we want to investigate here or we want to
investigate there. The facts are clear: These employees planted
evidence. They have admitted to planting evidence.
The whistleblower is how we first found out about it. The Forest
Service has disciplined, unfortunately, just by simply counseling. Any
other job in America they would have been fired, and, frankly, I think
criminal charges would have been filed by the local district attorney.
But in this particular case the Forest Service counseled them and then
kept it quiet. We only broke this loose about a month ago.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I appreciate the gentleman's knowledge, and we should
[[Page H23]]
note that investigators continue to work on this case.
Let me just ask, are the perpetrators still in the employ of the
Forest Service, receiving salaries from tax dollars, to the gentleman's
knowledge?
Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Arizona, the
answer to that is yes, they remain as employees of the Federal
Government, in good standing, by the way, I might add. Number two, the
Forest Service, to this point in time we have not been able to secure
from them information as to what other studies these particular
biologists have been involved in.
Because of the fact of the deeds that these biologists have
committed, the admitted deeds of planting evidence in hopes of having a
conclusion reached that lynx existed in these particular forests,
because of the seriousness of these charges, it is my opinion that we
should look at any work that these people have done to see whether or
not they have also planted evidence in those cases.
As the gentleman from Arizona will recall, a few months ago in the
City of Los Angeles they had a bad cop and he planted or fabricated
evidence in many, many cases. They had to reopen every case that cop
ever had his fingerprints on to see whether in fact, and,
unfortunately, they found out he had, to find out if in fact that
officer had altered evidence in those cases.
That is exactly what needs to happen here. But, unfortunately, the
Forest Service thought it was appropriate just to counsel these
employees, pat them on the back and tell them that they were bad boys
and bad girls and they should behave more properly in the future and
let it go at that.
Had we not found out about it, frankly, I am afraid we would see that
alteration or planting of evidence would then be seen as somewhat of an
acceptable practice with very little punishment by the controlling
agency.
Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield further for a question, we
have had a chance to discuss this off the House floor, but to make it a
part of the record here today, in this House Chamber, Mr. Speaker, I
would ask my colleague from Colorado, how he would characterize the
response of the Forest Service? Has it been forthcoming, has it been
begrudging, have we seen the type of attitude of how dare we question
their disciplinary procedures?
How would the gentleman characterize the ambiance or the governmental
philosophy of the response of those at the Forest Service?
Mr. McINNIS. At this point in time, reclaiming my time from the
gentleman from Arizona, I should say the Forest Service, or the
Department of Interior, or the Division of Wildlife in the State of
Washington, none of these agencies were forthcoming in advising the
United States Congress, more specifically the committees that have
direct responsibility over these issues, advising us that in fact false
evidence had been planted in a very critical study and it altered or
could have altered the results of that study. So that information was
not provided. We dug that information out.
However, once the information was located or provided to us, then I
can tell you the new head of the Department of Agriculture, Ann
Veneman, the head of the National Forest Service and the Secretary of
Interior have been very cooperative.
To the extent they have not yet given us those names, I am going to
get those names and I am going to release them to the public. I think
the public has a right to know the bad cop. In Los Angeles they put
that name out real quickly, because they wanted people who dealt with
this cop to know they had a bad cop. We need to know this here, too.
But to this point in time, they have been cooperative, the heads of
the agencies. We have not, in my opinion, found that same form of
cooperation at lower levels. In other words, we are finding a great
deal of resistance obviously by the biologists themselves. They know
they are in a lot of hot water and so on.
So, yes, we have had cooperation. We have a number of investigators
in the field and we hope in our subcommittee hearing which is coming up
to pull out further cooperation if it is not forthcoming.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend for the time. I would simply say I
look forward to joining my colleague from Colorado for those
subcommittee hearings.
But I also think it is important for purposes of full disclosure to
the American people, it is interesting, political scientists put a word
on what my friend describes, where you may have a philosophical and
cultural change at the top, but those at the different levels of
bureaucracy are somewhat reluctant to help deal with these policy
solutions or even feel that they are accountable for helping in that
regard. The political scientists call it bureaucratic inertia.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues today on the floor, let us
take away that value-neutral title. Anyone who withholds information,
as far as I am concerned, is complicit in a crime and part of a
coverup, and it is the duty of our subcommittee and the full committee
and this entire House in legitimate government oversight to work with
my colleague from Colorado.
I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, to any employee who believes they
have a higher calling than sound science or accountability to the
taxpayers of this country and the citizens of this Nation and duly
elected constitutional officers, they should go on notice: Their days
are numbered and we will get to the bottom of this on behalf of all the
American people, because the people have the right to know.
Mr. McINNIS. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I might point out to
my colleagues here, what we are talking about has implications for
millions of people. When you close down a forest in the West, remember
that in the West we have huge quantities of public lands. In the East
you have very little public land. In fact, in many of your States your
public lands are the lands where the county courthouse sits. Oh, we
have the Shenandoah Park and the Florida Everglades, but for the most
part in the East you have no public lands.
In the West we are totally and completely dependent upon public
lands. All of our power, our highways, our lifestyle, our recreation,
our farms, our ranches, our water, everything is fully dependent upon
the Federal lands.
There are ways that you can shut us off. There are ways that you can
shut down human existence in the West. One of them is through these
endangered species. There has been a much higher priority given to
endangered species, as you know, than human species on a number of
occasions. In some cases I think there is some justification for that.
But under these circumstances, what has happened is if you found
evidence of a lynx, and in fact that endangered species never existed
in that particular area, or the habitat is not in existence, but
because of planted evidence, because Federal employees lied, hundreds
of thousands of people who depend on the public lands or thousands and
thousands of people who have private lands that are impacted by the
endangered species, and remember, endangered species regulations do not
just apply to public lands, they apply to private lands, their lives
could be affected in a very negative fashion, a loss of huge value of
their holdings or their lifestyles or their work.
So the ramifications of planting this evidence are just as serious as
if a cop came into the gentleman from Arizona's office and planted a
bag of cocaine and then turned you in. You can imagine the public
outcry for your resignation because they found cocaine in your office.
The ramifications are huge. And it is same thing here. The
ramifications of this false and planted information are devastating if
deployed in the way that these biologists intended.
Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friend would yield, I want to thank him for
putting the proper perspective on this, Mr. Speaker, because from time
to time there are those who will portray any instance of wrongdoing as
being somehow an issue decided because of the person's naivete or
confusion and that there would be no harm.
My colleague from Colorado points out quite correctly that while
public land is important in all of our 50 States, public land is such a
fact of life west of the Mississippi, and particularly in the
Southwest, where in my Congressional district, the Sixth Congressional
District of Arizona, we have some counties that the land mass is 95
[[Page H24]]
percent government-controlled. Indeed, one county, Gila County,
Arizona, less than 3 percent of the land is private land.
And this is not some esoteric imagining. This is a reality for the
people of the West who, time and again, have proven to be good stewards
of the land, who, because of a unique circumstance in applying for
statehood, had to confer to the Federal Government over half of their
lands as a dowry, if you will, or as a condition for statehood.
It sets up a different dynamic than we see here on the eastern
seaboard. It sets up a dynamic with which many Americans in major
cities in the East or the Midwest may not be familiar, indeed, a
dynamic that some in fact in western major cities may not be familiar
with.
But this has a direct harm on American citizens, particularly in the
rural West, and it is not a noble and misguided action.
Indeed, we see that in the newspapers today with the arrival of the
American Taliban, John Walker Lindh, and the spin that somehow a young
person meant well, but they were naive, ignoring the fact that young
Americans younger than John Walker Lindh put on the uniform of this
country to defend this country, and yet in the popular culture with the
defeatist notions blaming America first, you get this incredible spin,
and, quite frankly, this deviant public psychology that will explain
away any and all crimes.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado and I and other members of
this subcommittee will get to the bottom of these crimes that have been
committed against the American people. And, no, this was not a naive
misjudgment deserving of counseling, any more than the actions of the
so-called American Taliban are things to be excused. They are both
crimes against this country. And how horrible it is that the
perpetrators of this crime were ostensibly working on behalf of the
American people and to this day are paid with the hard-earned tax money
of the American citizens.
We will make it clear that sound science must be restored and a new
sense of ethics must come to our pursuit of conservation and our
preservation of our environment. In that way, people of good will, even
though there may be disagreements on public policy, can at least work
from sound scientific data, and in the public arena and in this Chamber
and in the give and take of community control can come up with sound
solutions, rather than having the misguided folks who believe the ends
absolutely justify the means, who would even take criminal action to
appeal to their misguided notion of what the greater good might be.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of laws and not of
men, but men must faithfully execute the laws of this country. And in
their wisdom our founders gave this branch of government, the
legislative branch, legitimate oversight of those executive agencies
who from time to time might forget their scope and mission, might
engage in misfeasance and malfeasance.
With my colleague from Colorado at the helm our subcommittee, I have
every confidence that we will get to the bottom of this, and it will
make a difference on behalf of the American people. I yield back to my
friend.
Mr. McINNIS. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The gentleman is
correct. These biologists lied. There is no way around it. These were
Federal employees who lied. They have admitted to their lie. They
planted evidence.
The purpose for which they planted this evidence was to alter the
National Lynx Survey. They wanted to alter it in such a way, in my
opinion, that they wanted to show the existence of an endangered
species in a forest, which in fact no previous evidence has been found
that that possibly endangered species had habitat in that area. That is
the whole intent.
Now, what they are saying today is they just wanted to test the
laboratory. You can imagine, to my colleague from Arizona, if you put a
gun in your belt and walked through the metal detector at the airport
and then explain to the officers that captured you, I just wanted to
test your metal detector, that is why I walked through with a gun. Or a
cop who plants evidence who says I just wanted to test the laboratory,
the crime lab, to see if they could find that I planted the evidence
and not the poor suspect who could face years in prison, point number
one.
{time} 1530
The second point I would make with the gentleman is, the gentleman
speaks of the national media. Can we imagine what the national media
would be doing with this story if, in fact, the facts were reserved.
If, in fact, somebody had gone in and actually taken a live lynx or
taken evidence out of the forest so that it appeared that no endangered
species existed in that area, to me, that would be completely
intolerable. But it would be on the front page of, certainly, The New
York Times and certainly The Washington Post and certainly the Miami
Herald and all of the papers in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
This story is being brushed aside in some camps. It is our
responsibility. I say to my colleague from the State of Arizona, under
the subcommittee of which I am chair and of which the gentleman is an
active member, it is our responsibility, regardless of the Robin Hood
mystique that may be placed by some media outlets on these individuals,
it is our responsibility to make it known that Federal biologists have
a fiduciary responsibility, which has been violated through their lies,
which they have admitted to, through their planting of evidence, which
they have admitted to, and have them answer to the consequences of
their actions.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As we were hearing
a recitation of different analogies and actual events, whether it be
the Los Angeles cop gone bad, or a variety of other stories, I thought
about the conduct of those who have come in this institution before;
and when my colleague and I were still in private life, I can remember
reading as an American citizen of the Abscam investigation and, indeed,
a Member of this House, who was caught red-handed on videotape
pocketing proceeds, ill-gotten gains, held a press conference and said,
I was just conducting my own investigation. As absurd as that denial
was then, it is equally absurd to have these bio-frauds claiming the
same thing and, worse still, the management of the agency saying, well,
you need some counseling. You can continue to work here in good
standing, but you need some counseling.
No. What needs to happen is that the rule of law must be maintained
and the sacred trust of those who would work on behalf of the taxpayers
must be restored. I salute my colleague for taking the lead on this. I
pledge to him and, Mr. Speaker, to this House, and to those I
represent, that we will find out what has transpired and we will make
the changes necessary.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman, we have
heard a lot of discussion about the Enron Corporation and a lot of
attention has been paid to the Enron Corporation, and the shredding,
not only at Enron, but Arthur Andersen, the shredding of evidence. They
are there destroying evidence. In this particular case which, by the
way, could impact hundreds of thousands of people, evidence was not
shredded, it was created, falsely created and then planted as to affect
the result of the study.
So I appreciate the gentleman. What I intend to do here is read for
the Record, unless the gentleman has any further comments, I would like
to read for the Record a letter issued by the chairman of the whole
committee and myself as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forest and
Forest Health, a letter sent to the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture and to the Secretary of the Interior.
``Dear Secretaries:
``We are alarmed and outraged by the findings of a recent Forest
Service investigation regarding the lynx recovery survey, which
concluded that hair samples from Canadian lynx had been illicitly
``planted'' on three known occasions by officials in the U.S. Forest
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife. While we commend the Forest Service
and the Fish and Wildlife Service for investigating the matter and
bringing it to Congress's attention, we believe the investigation's
findings raise other fundamental issues and questions that have not yet
been satisfactorily answered. Notably, it calls into question
[[Page H25]]
the very credibility and the integrity of broader lynx surveys. Given
the extraordinary impact that the lynx recovery program will have on
the management of national forests throughout the West and around the
Nation, the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service should
immediately resolve these outstanding issues.
``First, we believe that simply reassigning culpable individuals is a
grossly inadequate punishment, given the magnitude of this offense.
While the investigation may, in fact, be correct in concluding that
these incidents do not rise to the level of criminality, a finding we
reserve judgment on until we have the opportunity to thoroughly review
the facts and the relevant laws, these offenses minimally amount to
professional malfeasance of the highest order. Whatever the reason,
these individuals appear and have admitted to knowingly and willfully
planted false evidence that, if unexposed, would have had immense
implications on any number of management decisions. Even if not
criminal, again, an issue we reserve judgment on, this unethical
behavior runs afoul of even the most lackadaisical standard of
professional conduct. As such, we believe these individuals should be
terminated immediately if their guilt is verifiable. We have every
confidence that if a Federal employee buried or otherwise concealed
legitimate evidence pointing to the existence of a lynx on a national
forest, their termination would be swift and sure. This incident should
be treated no differently. Federal land managers simply cannot be
allowed to obstruct a process of this size and this consequence with
relative impunity.
``Second, we believe the nature of these improprieties dictates an
immediate and a thorough review of all of the data acquired during the
course of the lynx survey. A December 13 Forest Service memo to
Congress detailing this incident asserts that survey coordinators feel
the integrity of the overall lynx sampling effort is being maintained.
But the memo offers nothing to support those findings. Has the Forest
Service attempted to independently verify the scientific authenticity
of previously identified lynx samples found in other regions? Can the
Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service say with any level of
certainty that any other lynx samples were not planted in a similar
manner? If the answer to either of these questions is no, how can the
Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service guarantee Congress and the
public that the national lynx recovery effort is grounded in science
rather than in the fraudulent behavior of some unscrupulous field
officers.
``Ultimately, the credibility of the lynx survey is now hanging by a
thread. The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have an
obligation to demonstrate the propriety of other samples before it uses
the lynx survey to make sweeping land management decisions.
``As your internal audit of this situation moves forward, we intend
to ask the General Accounting Office to conduct its own parallel probe
of these incidents. In addition, at this time we are planning on
holding oversight hearings before the Forests and Forest Health
Subcommittee early next year,'' that is this year, ``to ensure that
this unfortunate occurrence is satisfactorily remedied.''
The reason I read this into the Record is, one, I wanted the letter
submitted for the Record, as the gentleman from Arizona mentions, but I
also want to point out that this notes several of the points that the
gentleman has brought up. The gentleman has stated, I think in explicit
terms, exactly what the concern is we have here, and that is, we have
to depend on credibility. We cannot risk having scientists who make
these kinds of decisions planting the evidence. It is not right. It is
a lie. It ought to face the consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record at this time the
aforementioned letter.
December 17, 2001.
Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary, Department Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary, Department of Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Veneman and Secretary Norton: We were
alarmed and outraged by the findings of a recent Forest
Service investigation regarding the lynx recovery survey,
which concluded that hair samples from Canadian lynx had been
illicitly ``planted'' on three known occasions by officials
in the Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. While
we commend the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service for investigating the matter and bringing it to
Congress' attention, we believe the investigation's findings
raise other elemental issues and questions that have not yet
been satisfactorily answered. Notably, it calls into question
the very credibility and integrity of the broader Canada lynx
survey. Given the extraordinary impact that the lynx recovery
program will have on the management of national forests
throughout the West and around the nation, the Forest Service
and the Fish and Wildlife Service should immediately resolve
these outstanding matters.
First, we believe that simply reassigning culpable
individuals is a grossly inadequate punishment given the
magnitude of this offense. While the investigation may in
fact be correct in concluding that these incidents do not
rise to the level of criminality--a finding we reserve
judgment on until we have the opportunity to more thoroughly
review the facts and relevant laws--these offenses minimally
amount to professional malfeasance of the highest order.
Whatever the reason, these individuals appear to have
knowingly and willfully planted false evidence that, if
unexposed, would have had immense implications on any number
of management decisions. Even if not criminal--again, an
issue we reserve judgment on--this unethical behavior runs
afoul of even the most lackadaisical standard of professional
conduct. As such, we believe these individuals should be
terminated immediately if their guilt is verifiable. We have
every confidence that if a federal employee buried or
otherwise concealed legitimate evidence pointing to the
existence of a lynx on a national forest, their termination
would be swift and sure. This incident should be treated no
differently. Federal land managers simply cannot be allowed
to obstruct a process of this side and consequence with
relative impunity.
Second, we believe the nature of these improprieties
dictates an immediate and thorough review of all the data
acquired during the course of the lynx survey. A December 13
Forest Service memo to Congress detaining this incident
asserts that ``survey coordinators feel the integrity of the
overall lynx sampling effort is being maintained,'' but the
memo offers nothing to support these ``feelings.'' Has the
Forest Service attempted to independently verify the
scientific authenticity of previously identified lynx samples
found in other Regions? Can the Forest Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service say with any level of certainty that
other lynx samples were not ``planted'' in a similarly
surreptitious manner? If the answer to either of these
questions is no, how can the Forest Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service guarantee Congress and the public that the
national lynx recover effort is grounded in science, rather
than in the fraudulent behavior of unscrupulous field offers.
Ultimately, the credibility of the lynx survey is now
hanging by a thread. The Forest Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service have an obligation to demonstrate the
propriety of other samples before it uses the lynx survey to
make sweeping land management decisions.
As your internal audit of this situation moves forward, we
intend to ask the General Accounting Office to conduct its
own parallel probe of these incidents. In addition, at this
time we are planning on holding oversight hearings before the
Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee early next year to
ensure that this unfortunate occurrence is satisfactorily
remedied.
Sincerely,
Scott McInnis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources.
Jim Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The Chair would caution all
persons in the gallery to refrain from all conversations. The acoustics
in the chamber are such that these carry and make it impossible to hear
those speaking. Would all persons in the gallery please refrain from
further conversation.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am going to move to another subject, but
I will be happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to conclude.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I
appreciate the encyclopedic nature of the letter to the Forest Service.
I would just reiterate, it is a question of sound science; but even
more basic than that, it is a question of trust. We will work at the
subcommittee level, at the full committee level, and, indeed, in this
House of Representatives to ensure that the American people can trust
those who are in the service of this government to rely on sound
[[Page H26]]
science and to understand their fiduciary role to the American people
and to our public lands.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona. I
would also say to the gentleman that there are a couple of other
subjects here I intend to discuss, and I would invite the gentleman to
participate as well, because I know the gentleman from Arizona has some
very strong feelings.
First of all, let me tell my colleagues that in the last few days, I
cannot believe what I have been reading, but I have been reading in
world press and national press and even local press about some question
of the treatment of our prisoners, the al Qaeda prisoners that we are
now holding in Cuba. I cannot believe this. These are people whose
entire cause is to destroy our society; and frankly, they did a pretty
good job of it. Four or 5,000 people, they murdered them. That is what
it was. In cold blood, regardless of their nationalities, regardless of
their faith, regardless of whether they were military or nonmilitary;
we all know what I am talking about on September 11. These people
declared war against the United States of America.
And now, as prisoners in Cuba, I can assure my colleagues that, one,
they have better clothing than they have ever had. They have all been
provided with their religious book, the Koran, so that they can study
that if they wish. They are being fed better than they were being fed
in probably years. They are receiving better health care than they have
ever received in their home countries that they came from.
This is how we treat our prisoners. We are giving these people
treatment that I would say if it were in reverse, first of all, they
said very clearly what they were going to do with American prisoners.
At the very beginning, the leaders of the Taliban said that they looked
forward to a fight with America because they wanted to capture some
young American soldiers and they were going to skin them alive. Skin
them alive and ship the corpses back to us. That is what they were
going to do with their prisoners. Now, the International Red Cross,
which plays holier than thou, which, by the way, ought to clean up
their own books, in my opinion, thinks that they have some kind of
overriding legal jurisdiction to condemn the United States in the
treatment of these prisoners in Cuba.
These people are nasty people. Of course we do not allow them to sit
down with their fellow prisoners and communicate. Of course we have
them in handcuffs and shackles. Of course we put them in orange outfits
so that if they were to escape, they are much more easily identified.
Of course we do not put them in Nikes so that they cannot. It is like
any other prisoners, we put them in sandals or, in some cases barefoot,
so that if they were to attempt an escape, they cannot move very far.
I am astounded at the political spin that is being put on by some of
these media outlets that somehow the United States has shirked its
responsibility to these prisoners and to these detainees. As we know,
they are not prisoners of war, because we know what the International
Red Cross would like us to do, and that is to declare that these
detainees in Cuba are declared prisoners of war. Because once they are
declared prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, all they have to
tell us is their name, rank, and serial number or whatever
identification. That is it. They do not have to tell us about any
upcoming terrorist attacks. And as we can see now, with Johnny Walker,
the gentleman who, well, excuse me, I mistakenly referred to Mr. Walker
as a gentleman. He is a war criminal, in my opinion.
But the fact is, we now see some of the national media starting to
put a spin, and some of the liberal organizations putting a spin on
this that this Johnny Walker should have been advised in the
battlefield, right after they killed that American CIA agent, that
young man with a family, by the way, right after they killed him, that
when they captured this Johnny Walker, they should have advised him
that he had the right to see an attorney, that he needs to know
anything he says could be used against him in a court of law. They
wanted Miranda rights on the battlefield. That is where this political
spin is going.
We have every right to question those detainees in Cuba to determine
where the next terrorist attack is coming from. As the gentleman knows,
just this morning it was revealed to the American people that one of
the detainees has advised us that the embassy in Yemen has been
targeted for an attack on the embassy, and they have now evacuated the
embassy. We would not get that information if it were up to the
International Red Cross. I am astounded by the behavior of the
International Red Cross. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona to add
to this.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding,
because we need to make comments on this, especially the notion that we
would designate these illegal combatants, to whom we refer now as
detainees, as prisoners of war. Understand an even more diabolical
implication, if they were regarded as prisoners of war. That would mean
eventual repatriation to their various nations. Our Commander in Chief
stood at this podium in the well of this House, in the wake of the
attacks of September 11 and made clear to us, this is a new kind of
war.
{time} 1545
Yes, there are categories which we can recognize in terms of
international law. There are illegal combatants involved in this war,
as my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), pointed
out, as was brought home to us with crystal clarity on September 11.
Law-abiding citizens going about their daily activities were wantonly
and brutally attacked at the cost of at least 3,000 American lives in
New York, civilian personnel. With the cost of combined military and
civilian personnel in the hundreds here, within 5 miles of this
location at the Pentagon.
For the left wing media, I should also note for fairness, I received
an e-mail from a British couple. I jokingly call them my British
cousins because they take an interest in our constitutional Republic,
and they come to visit quite often. They e-mailed my office today
saying, Congressman, do not believe the prattle of the leftist press
and the British tabloids. John Bull, the British citizenry, is with
you. And how sad it is that the whole notion of the media culture has
turned from keeping a journal, a chronicle of events to a realm of
advocacy where opinions, no matter how aberrant, no matter how
ultimately harmful are entertained and given quarter as if they have
intellectual integrity.
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, to those who would champion the rights
of the butchers who oppose this country, the detainees who have told
their guards when they have a chance they will kill more Americans, the
detainees who have attempted to bite and with whatever weapons they
have, their own hands, their own guile, try to harm American citizens,
let me ask those who would champion in misguided notion their rights as
if they were American citizens, how do you explain it to the orphans of
September 11?
I mentioned earlier an attack occurred in close proximity to this
citadel of freedom, this Capitol dome, at the Pentagon on that same
horrible date.
I have heard stories of elementary children who lost their fathers,
who today are affected with conditions that will follow them the rest
of their lives. And as our Secretary of Defense has pointed out, as my
colleague from Colorado has pointed out, we are treating these
detainees who have vowed death to America, we have treated them more
humanely than they would ever consider treating us. They have given
them balanced meals. We have taken care of hygienic needs, and yes we
have even entitled them to worship and assembly, which in some free
nations where Americans now find themselves, in terms of military
personnel, their right to freely worship according to the dictates of
their own conscience is prohibited. And let me make it very clear, Mr.
Speaker, to that group of misguided miscreants so enveloped in a
doctrine of defeatism that they once again would blame America first,
do you not remember what transpired on September 11?
Let me put it in some perspective for you. For the first time in
modern history, for the first time in 200 years, our Nation was
attacked by a foreign power within the continental United
[[Page H27]]
States resulting in the death of innocents in an act of war. And this
new type of war does not need the culture of victimology or the
plaintive plea, why do they hate us, or all the other pop psychology
and social, pathological causation reasons that those in the parlors or
in the opinion journals should state.
We have a right to civil defense. We have a right to national
survival, and those who are enemies of this Nation will pay a price.
And, if necessary, if public opinion in Europe goes so awry, if the
culture has changed so greatly on behalf of some of our so-called
allies, then, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain the American Nation
is willing to go it alone.
And to those who think that we are somehow to blame, perhaps they
should pay a visit to some of the terrorist states, see what freedom of
worship, what freedom of assembly, what freedom of speech they would
enjoy in those environments and then report back to the United States
if they survive.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap this up very quickly by saying to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), your points are very valid.
The United States will do it alone if it is necessary. But the reason
the United States will not have to do it alone is because our friends
and our neighbors and our acquaintances in Europe know that these acts
of terrorism could be committed against them as well.
The International Red Cross is completely naive about the realities
of what they are trying to do and the spin they are trying to put this
thing on. I say I am gravely disappointed in the International Red
Cross which, frankly, at times in the past has enjoyed a good
reputation. The National Red Cross has had their reputation tarnished
with their Victims Fund, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
knows. Now we have the International Red Cross trying to put on a spin.
I want to move quickly and I would be happy to yield the gentleman a
few minutes. We have about 9 minutes remaining. I would like to talk
about this upcoming session. I noted that the previous speaker spoke
about bipartisanship on the education bill. I was proud of that.
We got a good bill out of here. We used bipartisanship. But there are
some issues of which there are fundamental differences; and the fact
that we cannot reach bipartisan support on some of these issues
reflects the fundamental belief that some of us have. The fundamental
belief of which I am speaking, which we are going to address here in
the next few weeks, is the Democratic Party desire to raise taxes in
this recession and the Republican desire to cut the taxes. Not raise
taxes in this situation.
One of the leading speakers for the Democratic Party said just last
week that the death tax, a tax which has no rational basis in our
taxing system, the death tax was only put into our system to punish
people who had been successful in our society, to punish the families,
the Rockefellers and the Fords back around the turn of the last
century; that is why this thing was placed into effect. Now, as you
know, if you own a truck, a dump truck, a pickup and a bulldozer you
are now in the death tax range. The leading Democratic spokesman said
we should continue the death tax and we should immediately increase
taxes by not allowing the people the tax cuts they have been promised
in a recessionary period.
As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) said earlier on on this
very House floor, he made the statement that President Kennedy, in the
recession that President Kennedy faced, said this is not the time to
raise taxes. This is time to put money in the pockets of consumers, the
people that earn it. It is not our money. We take it from our citizens.
We bring it here, and the citizens much more effectively spend that
money.
This is a policy disagreement. Do not let people sugar coat it by
telling you we ought to be bipartisan; we ought to agree to raise your
taxes, America. Or maybe sugar coat it and not call it a tax raise. But
really, we will not give you the tax reductions you deserved.
In other words, it is going to Safeway with a coupon that says you
get 25 cents off Cheerios, and when you get there, Safeway says, well,
we will not honor the coupon anymore. So we did not really raise the
price of Cheerios by 25 cents, but we will not honor the coupon we just
gave you. That is not what Safeway does. Safeway is a good store, but
you get the point.
I will yield the balance of my time, which is probably about 4\1/2\
minutes or so, for the gentleman to make comments about this tax issue.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that I am honored to join my colleague not only
in membership on the Committee on Resources but also on the Committee
on Ways and Means, the committee with jurisdiction over the tax code,
the committee that shepherded through the tax relief plan that our
President asked for and the American people received earlier this year,
and then worked hard, not once, but twice, to deliver an economic
security package that, sadly, in the other Chamber has yet to see the
light of day. And I appreciate my colleague commenting on it.
I think this is important, too, because it seems that some leaders on
the other side, regardless of Chamber, have a problem not so much with
the Republican Party but with members of their own party. We have heard
of many Democrats joining with us in a bipartisan fashion regardless of
their economic philosophy, whether they adhere to the notion of John
Maynard Keynes or whether they join us in the supply-side notion that
at a time of economic downturn taxes must be reduced. Why? Because the
economy needs to grow and people need more of their own money to save,
spend, and invest. And the American people, Mr. Speaker, have gotten
wise to the tired old argument that tax relief only benefits the rich.
Indeed, if you look more closely, the top 1 percent of income earners
in the United States shoulder 36 percent of the tax burden. The top 5
percent take over 70 percent of the collective tax burden. The fact is,
as our friend from Florida pointed out earlier today, as a Democratic
chief executive, the late President Kennedy said, a rising tide lifts
all boats.
Economic opportunity is important for all the American people. And so
I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that the President of the
United States has come and insisted on trying to change the tone in
Washington. It resulted in a bipartisan education bill. Some people
remain tone deaf when it comes to the question of taxation. But I take
heart from the fact that those who have seen to oppose us and whose
inaction lead unneccessarily, I believe, to holiday season
of suffering, and how is this for irony? The very people who some on
this Hill claim to champion suffered at their hands because of inaction
on an economic security package brought to this floor not once, but
twice, a compromise worked out with interests of the other party. And
yet, hope springs eternal, and we will come back again.
But the American people understand, as my colleague, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Mcinnis), understands, as Members of both Houses,
from both parties understand, the key to economic vitality is growth,
and that growth is expressed by people having their own money to save,
spend and invest, making their own decisions to fuel the economic
engine so vital to not only our economic security but also to our
national security.
Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back to my friend, the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note and repeat
again, this is not the time to raise taxes. And I urge those members of
the Democratic Party who are active in the party leadership structure
to counsel those members of the party not to raise taxes. This hurts
all American people in a recessionary period. This is not the time for
the Democrats to raise taxes on the American people. We are in a
recession. Those dollars need to stay in the pockets of our citizens.
____________________