THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
American Security or CARA?
By Fred Kelly Grant
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) was reportedly scheduled for consideration by the House on Friday, September 14. The dastardly, cowardly terrorist attacks on innocent American citizens put all such business on hold. Congress turned immediately to supporting the President in his efforts to defend our liberty, offensively and defensively.
Our President, along with a courageous mayor of New York City, has urged us all to go back to work, to demonstrate to the terrorists and all other enemies that this nation will not yield to such attacks. So, we do that, although with difficulty.
Make no mistake, CARA will re-emerge. Massive funding for land acquisition is extremely important to its sponsors. The dangers which CARA poses to private property and basic American principles of limited government are set forth at length in "CARA, The Unraveling of a Free Nation," available on Stewards of the Range website and by mail from Stewards. The flaws of CARA are not here repeated in detail. But, it is important that Americans study the Bill and voice their opposition. It is important that all Representatives receive word from the grassroots that there are far more important ways to spend 45 billion American dollars.
Here, we review just a few of the more urgent needs for tax dollars. First, there is our defense. The battle against terrorist networks will be costly. Congress has already authorized $40 billion for rehabilitation of the devastation, support for the victims, and necessary war operations. $15 billion have been authorized to bail out the airlines which now form a critical part of our national transportation network. Untold more billions will be required to put us in position for the long fight against those who oppose our liberty.
There is no huge surplus from which these defense needs can be funded. Even before September 11, 2001, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the reported federal surplus is illusory. The Report concluded that throughout the next three years the total surplus, outside social security funds, is only $2 billion. The so-called surplus of $153 billion actually includes the social security trust. Americans seem united in their belief that all funds, even the social security surplus, should be committed to the war with terrorists who have woefully misjudged the resolve of this nation. But, assuredly they are not united in support of spending $45 billion for the land-grab program contained in CARA.
Prior to issuance of the Congressional Budget Office report, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Id) expressed concern about the adverse impact CARA would have on the budget:
"I am deeply concerned about the budgetary implications of CARA in its current form.
While the proponents maintain the $3 billion yearly funding for CARA comes from offshore oil revenues, a close examination of the legislation will show the money will actually be pulled directly from the general treasury. Unfortunately, that means CARA’s $3 billion will be taken directly from other worthy programs already benefiting from the off shore oil revenues that go into the general treasury—including veterans, education, health care, conservation, law enforcement, military and any other function of the federal government.
...I am certain that the ‘overwhelming’ support would not be so overwhelming when the true impact on other federal programs are fully understood." (Statements published in the Idaho Statesman, July 31, 2001, Editorial and Opinion page 9)
After issuance of the budget report, and after September 11, it should be obvious, even to the most ardent CARA supporters, that there is more urgent need for the offshore oil revenues. The welfare of the companies which produce those revenues is totally dependent upon our defense, and, in the event of a full-scale war involving even some of the oil producing middle eastern states, the welfare of this country is dependent upon those companies. There is a rational connection between those revenues and expenditures for the on-going military operations which we face, for the on-going re-building of our espionage program, and for the on-going security measures, such as a sky marshal program, necessary to assure Americans of travel safety. None of these expenses will be limited to this, or the next, fiscal year. Today, it makes far more sense to commit the "CARA $45 billion" over the next 15 years to our security.
Next, there is the matter of fixing the problems caused by lack of management and maintenance of the lands already owned by the federal government. As Rep. Young (R-Alaska) bulldozed CARA through the House in the late summer of 2000, the national forests throughout the west were ablaze. Los Alamos was ravaged by an out of control fire. The massive impact of the fires was significantly increased by tremendous fuel build-ups resulting from mismanagement, and no management, of our forests. The national parks were unable to serve the nation’s citizens because of years of mismanagement and no management. Yet, the House moved quickly to authorize billions for the purchase of more lands to add to the already poorly managed lands.
As CARA approached consideration in the House this year, over 42 major fires were burning throughout the western forests and range. According to the Los Angeles Times, this season’s fires have "consumed 2.84 million acres across the West and left 15 people dead." (Article by Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2001)
Four firefighters were killed as they battled a forest fire in Washington state, and the Forest Service has admitted that horrible mismanagement contributed to the deaths. In a report issued September 26, 2001 in Yakima, Washington, the Service acknowledged that every basic fire fighting rule was violated. Deputy Forest Service Chief Jim Furnish said: "At several points in the fire, decisions could have been made and actions could have been taken that could have prevented this...But tragically, all 10 of 10 standard fire orders were overlooked, ignored or violated."
The Service also acknowledged that a helicopter did delay water drops because of a lack of understanding as to whether water could be removed from a nearby river because of concerns of Endangered Species Act protection of salmon. A Forest Service news release states that the investigating team recommended that the Service "Clarify the relationship between the Endangered Species Act and fire suppression actions to establish a coherent process that accounts for ESA requirements with respect to the full range of fire suppression activities."
During the debate in 2000, many members of Congress demanded that adequate funds for correcting the back-log of maintenance needs be authorized prior to authorization for condemnation of more lands to add to the federal holdings. Their efforts failed. Perhaps a second year of fire trauma will have more impact. As Rep. Simpson stated:
"One need only look at last summer’s devastating fires at Burgdorf Junction, Atlanta and Salmon (all in Idaho), or the current Green Knoll fire that is threatening Jackson Hole to realize that our nation’s forests are not healthy.
According to the U.S. Forest Service, there is a maintenance backlog of at least 40 million acres at ‘high risk’ of wildfires, insects and disease. The General Accounting Office stated that eliminating the maintenance backlog in the Department of Interior would cost at least $7 billion."
Why add more land to the already mismanaged federal lands?
Next, is the matter involving the scandalous mismanagement of Native American trust funds by the Department of Interior and its infamous Bureau of Indian Affairs. Congress should set its sights on remedying this blight on American history, a remedy which, according to some estimates, will require funds of $20 to $40 billion.
Over 100 years ago, Congress decided that the federal government should hold revenue from land privately owned by Native Americans in trust for the individual owners of the lands. Tragically believing that Native Americans were incapable of handling their own affairs, the decision was made to hold their money in trust for them. Under this trust program, revenues such as royalties from the sale of petroleum, timber and other resources, were to be placed in trust for the owners of the lands.
As a trustee, the government should have been governed by the laws which apply to any trust situation: the trustee is morally, ethically and legally obligated to account accurately and fairly to the beneficiary. But, for decades, the Department of Interior operated outside the scope of the law. Disinterest and mismanagement over the years now makes it impossible for the government to account for the billions of dollars which should be in the trust accounts. As Native Americans tried to reach their funds, the government repeatedly turned them away.
Growing weary of government stone-walling, Eloise Cobel of Montana initiated a movement resulting in a lawsuit charging the Department of Interior with gross mismanagement of the trust funds by failing "to keep accurate records," by destroying records demonstrating breach of trust, by failing to "account to the trust beneficiaries (individual Native Americans) with respect to their money," and by having "lost, dissipated or converted" the use of the beneficiaries’ money. (Complaint in Cobell v. Babbitt, Civil Action 96cv01285, District of Columbia).
On December 21, 1999, a federal district judge ruled that "the federal government and its officers have been derelict in their duties," and remanded the case to the Departments of Interior and Treasury with instructions to "discharge their fiduciary obligations." The judge found "a shocking pattern of deception" on the part of the federal government.
Instead of immediately beginning to remedy the wrong, government attorneys appealed the decision, actually having the temerity to argue that the government owed no trust duties to the Native Americans whose money has been mismanaged and lost. They had the gall to argue that the government owed no duty to even render an accounting for all the money collected into their trust accounts. These arguments were made in the face of specific Congressional acknowledgement of trust duties by passage of the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. They were made in the face of centuries old rules of law requiring a trustee to account for funds held for a beneficiary—rules so basic that even government attorneys should have been aware of them.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge on February 23, 2001, finding that the government owed the Native Americans "the highest fiduciary obligations" and that the government had breached its duty to fulfill those obligations. The Court stated:
"The Interior Department has failed to discharge the fiduciary duties it owes to [Native American] beneficiaries for decades. Despite passage of the 1994 Act, the Department is still unable to execute the most fundamental of trust duties—an accurate accounting."
Throughout trial of the case, the Department of Interior has attempted to obstruct the proceedings. At one point, the trial judge held Bruce Babbitt and then Treasury Secretary Rubin in contempt of court, and fined them over $600,000 for failing to turn over documents related to the case. That fine was paid with Americans’ tax dollars. Currently, investigations are underway regarding the government’s destruction of records which the court had ordered disclosed, as well as other obstructions of justice related to the case.
The new administration committed to reform the problems quickly. But, on September 17, a court-appointed Monitor reported that the current administration has failed to correct the record-keeping problems, and that it has left the program in the hands of the same mismanaging "senior managers" who were in charge under Babbitt. He stated: "...The cry that ‘it didn’t happen on our watch’ can no longer provide a defense for this administration." Plaintiffs are now seeking to have Secretary Norton held in contempt of court.
How is this inexcusable dereliction of duty relevant to CARA? First, Congress should carefully consider committing the "CARA funds" to remedy the incredible mismanagement of Native American funds before authorizing funds for CARA’s land-acquisition purposes. How can Congress ethically commit $45 billion for CARA in light of the fact that billions of dollars in revenues from privately owned property have been withheld from the property owners? Second, CARA commits the disposition of $45 billion over the next 15 years to the discretion of the Secretaries of Interior and Treasury. It embarrasses notions of common sense to place such management trust in the discretion of two departments which (1) have dreadfully mismanaged trust funds related to revenues from private property, (2) have blatantly disregarded specific instructions and mandates from Congress, and (3) have contemptuously disobeyed specific orders of a federal court.
CARA should be stopped in place, not only because of its flaws which have been detailed in "CARA, The Unraveling of a Free Nation" and in many other studies of the Bill, but also because of the more critical need to provide funds to rectify serious problems relating to national defense and reconstruction, national security, mismanagement of federal lands leading to backlog maintenance needs, and breach of trust duties by the federal agencies.
Reprint permission is granted in whole or in part with attribution to Liberty Matters, Stewards of the Range, and American Land Foundation.
Contact Us:
Stewards of the Range
707 E. United Heritage Court, Suite 150
(208) 855-0707
fax: (208) 855-0763
e-mail: stewards@stewardsoftherange.org
website: www.stewardsoftherange.org
American Land Foundation
700 West Lake
Taylor, TX 76574
(512) 708-8083
fax (512) 708-8298Liberty Matters
P.O. Box 1207
Taylor, TX 76574
1-800-847-0227
fax (518) 725-8239
e-mail: libertymatters@aol.com
website: www.libertymatters.org
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
