[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.

                          ____________________