Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 23, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2280 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 23, 2000 ROBERT HUBERTY EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT CAPITAL RESEACH
CENTER HOUSE resources ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES AND FEDERAL
LAND POLICY
BODY:
May 23, 2000 Testimony of Robert
Huberty Executive Vice President Capital Research Center Before the U.S. House
of Representatives Committee on Resources Chairman Young: Thank you for inviting
Capital Research Center to testify on how environmental initiatives are funded.
My name is Robert Huberty and I am executive vice president of Capital Research
Center, which is based in Washington, D.C. Capital Research Center studies
charity, philanthropy and the nonprofit sector. We take a particular interest in
the role of public interest organizations and their impact on American politics
and society. We do not solicit or accept any government grants or contracts.
Capital Research Center has published a number of recent studies about the
groups that comprise today's environmental movement. We think there is
inadequate public understanding about the underlying philosophy of these groups,
the ties and linkages among their leaders, and, most particularly, their access
to fanders and to public policymakers-I We have argued that the central public
policy goal for environmental groups is at odds with the needs of individuals
and communities. Environmental groups today seek the preservation of natural
resources from human use over their protection for human use. Certainly this is
the goal of one recent environmental initiative, The Heritage Forests Campaign,
on which I would like to focus my comments today. Specifically, I would like to
address the role of grantmaking foundations that provided financial support for
the Heritage Forests Campaign. These foundations have orchestrated a major
public relations campaign to advocate for changes in government regulatory
policies. They would have the federal government immediately and permanently
halt road-building and logging in national forests, and, as others have
testified at an earlier Resource subcommittee hearing, this comes at the expense
of individuals and communities who depend on the national forests for their
livelihoods. In addition, theirs is a political campaign to spur regulatory
actions by-the Executive branch without the consent of the Congress. Last
October 13 President Clinton directed the Forest Service to prepare a study that
would ban road building on parts of the National Forest System that are
currently roadless but that Congress has not agreed to designate as permanent
wilderness areas. The President's speech was anticipated by the Pew Charitable
Trusts, which acknowledges that it organized the campaign to promote the
roadless initiative. On September 24, 1998 the Pew Trusts made a grant of
$1,415,000 to the National Audubon Society for this purpose.2 On September 23,
1999 it gave the Society an additional grant of $2,150,000 for 15 months "To
complete a public education effort for permanent administrative protection of
the largest remaining tracts of pristine old growth remaining in U.S. national
forests."3 These grants were made at the behest of Daniel Beard, public policy
director of the National Audubon Society and a former head of the bureau of
reclamation in the Clinton Administration. As Mr. Beard revealed in the
September 18-19 minutes of the Audubon Society's board meeting (which have been
subsequently deleted from the Society's website), the purpose of the Pew grant
money was to assemble organizations working under Audubon "supervision" to
orchestrate the roadless campaign. 4 The Campaign lists twenty- four
organizations as Campaign "partners." The Campaign's website www.ourforests.o
also indicates that it receives financial support from the W. Alton Jones
Foundation and the Turner Foundation. 5 In the chart accompanying my testimony
there is additional information compiled from websites and public sources on
other foundations that have funded advocacy for the roadless initiative. The Pew
Charitable Trusts are the major funders for this campaign. In 1998 it gave a
grant of $800,000 to the Earth justice Legal Defense Fund "For public education
on national forest protection issues."6 On March 16, 2000 it gave the Alaska
Conservation Foundation (ACF) $500,000 "To support a campaign to seek permanent
administrative protection of 14 million acres of roadless land in the Alaska
Rainforest."7 (The year before ACF gave the Alaska Rainforest Campaign an $1
1,000 "rapid response" grant for "Internet advertising to generate comments on
National Forest Roadless Areas.") Pew also gave the National
Environmental Trust $3,000,000 in grants in 1999 and in 2000 for general
operating support. The Trust, which was formed in 1994 with $ 1 0 million in
foundation grants, most notably from Pew, coordinates media outreach on selected
environmental issues. Heritage Forests is one of its four target areas. I would
point out that the source of wealth for the Pew Trusts comes from energy
exploration and development. Joseph N. Pew, Sr. was the founder of the Sun Oil
Company, a major oil producer and refiner. Hisson,JHowardPew(1882-1971)left
nearly all his $1 00 million estate to the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust, one of
the Pew Charitable Trusts, instructing that it be used to "acquaint the American
people" with the "evils of bureaucracy...... the values of a free market," and
"the paralyzing effects of government controls on the lives and activities of
people." How do the Pew Trusts honor the intentions of their donor by supporting
a campaign to permanently end logging in a large portion of the national
forests? The Pew Trust is not the only foundation promoting the roadless
initiative. As you know, The World Wildlife Fund and the Conservation Biology
Institute asked the David and Lucile Packard Foundation for a grant of $650,000
for "roadless area mapping and related policy support" for
Alaska, Washington state, Oregon and California. The grant application, which
the Resources Committee obtained from the Forest Service, says "We have a huge
opportunity to influence the Forest Service and perhaps other agencies to move
progressively on the roadless areas issue and perhaps others."
If the Packard Foundation approves this grant it appears that they will be
supporting the environmental groups' expectation that they are taking over
Forest Service responsibilities for determining roadless policies. This is a
practice that has provoked dissent even within the Forest Service itself." The
groups supervised by the National Audubon Society with grants from Pew and other
foundations say they are dismayed by the Forest Service recommendations that
were issued on May 9. In looking at-their websites you can see a remarkable
uniformity. They say the President is not to blame, but assert that his
Administration has failed to implement his "vision." They are disappointed that
the Forest Service recommends a ban on new roads, but does not permanently ban
all logging and off-road vehicle use. They are appalled that it defers a
decision on Alaska's Tongass National Forest until the year 2004. They are
unhappy that the ban applies to inventoried areas of 5000 or more acres but does
not include uninventoried areas of 1000 or more acres. Finally, they urge their
followers to turn out for the information and public comment meetings organized
by the Forest Service that began last week. The Congress and the public have
good reason to question the funding priorities of large foundations. Private
foundations are peculiar creations of public law. Their assets are tax-exempt.
Contributions to them are tax-deductible. They are often established in order to
avoid estate taxes. The government gives a foundation these privileges with the
expectation that its trustees will respect the intentions of the donor who
established it, and that those intentions are benevolent and charitable.
Certainly a foundation may support research and education programs. But when a
foundation organizes a lobbying campaign on a highly divisive political issue,
when it uses its largess to task one nonprofit organization -- the National
Audubon Society - - to coordinate the lobbying of other nonprofits, then
Congress should ask whether the spirit of the law is being upheld. The Pew
Charitable Trusts may respond that they are doing what they have a right to do,
that others do it, and that no one has called on them to stop doing it. But by
making themselves merely another Washington lobbying group, they undermine the
traditions and institutions of philanthropy which are a vital part of our
society.
LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2000, Wednesday
