Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 15, 2017)
Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Wednesday, February 15, 2017 Founded October 16, 1875 KATHRYN B. BROWN Publisher DANIEL WATTENBURGER Managing Editor TIM TRAINOR Opinion Page Editor MARISSA WILLIAMS Regional Advertising Director MARCY ROSENBERG Circulation Manager JANNA HEIMGARTNER Business Office Manager MIKE JENSEN Production Manager OUR VIEW Pre-emption of local GMO regulations must remain Biotech critics are calling on But there is scant evidence that anyone in Oregon has yet been so Oregon lawmakers to overturn a harmed. prohibition against local government In 2015, Oregon lawmakers passed restrictions on genetically engineered crops because the state has not House Bill 2509, which created enacted regulations. mediation protocols for growers who Such regulation that is required believe nearby farming practices are should come from interfering with the state. Voters their operations. “Oregon farmers Because of with little first- hand agriculture an error in that can’t wait another law, the Oregon experience can be easily swayed four years to protect Department of Agriculture by emotional lacked arguments short themselves from this actually the authority to on facts and long the on fear mongering. harm,” implement program. Legislators — Amy van Saun, agreed. Nonetheless, Center for Food Safety since the law In 2013, was passed the the Oregon agency has received no requests Legislature passed a law that for mediation under the program. pre-empted cities and counties from Growers can seek similar mediation setting their own rules over seeds, which blocked most local ordinances through the USDA, but none have expressed interest with that agency, banning genetically modified either. organisms, or GMOs. It is possible that growers are Groups that opposed the working out problems with their pre-emption bill say state inaction neighbors without involving since it was passed has justified the government. That’s what good passage of House Bill 2469, which neighbors do. would carve out an exemption The lack of official complaints allowing local GMO regulations. “Oregon farmers can’t wait another does not minimize the potential for four years to protect themselves from cross-pollination contamination or other issues. And the unintended this harm,” said Amy van Saun, a release from field trials of Roundup legal fellow at the Center for Food Ready creeping bentgrass that has Safety nonprofit group. taken hold in Malheur and Jefferson Beyond ideological resistance counties is evidence that things can to GMOs, the practical concern get out of control. for organic growers and some We are not arguing against a conventional farmers is a fear that reasonable regulatory scheme that their crops will be contaminated does not favor one type of crop or through cross-pollination. farming practice over another. That’s a reasonable fear, as We are against 36 separate accidental contamination of a regulatory schemes, particularly those farmer’s organic crops would render them unsellable in the organic market. that impose outright bans. Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of publisher Kathryn Brown, managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, and opinion page editor Tim Trainor. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. OTHER VIEWS Civil forfeiture laws need reform The Dallas Morning News W hen President Donald Trump recently offered to “ruin the career” of the Texas lawmaker pushing civil forfeiture reform, the ensuing political maelstrom made headlines for days. But far more important than the president’s remarks, which seemed to have been offered at least half in jest, is the question of whether the laws need changing in the first place. Boy, do they. Civil forfeiture as practiced in Texas and many other states is an affront to even the most basic notions of due process and of presumed innocence. It’s also a direct assault of property rights. In Texas, the government routinely seizes cash, cars, homes and other valuables for people suspected of certain crimes, especially those related to drugs. A suspected drug dealer may have a satchel of cash seized. Or a parent whose adult child is accused of dealing drugs in the home may even have the house seized. The scandal is that the government often gets to keep the money even if the suspects are never convicted or, as in many cases, never even charged. If the property belongs to someone else — say, the suspect had borrowed a car or lived with a parent or friend — the true owners must at their own considerable expense prove they were “innocent owners.” That’s a burden of proof higher than what it takes to convict a defendant. If they can’t prove it, they lose the property — whether they had anything to do with the crime or not. This system ought to offend anyone, liberal or conservative, who values property rights, respects due process or values simple fairness. It’s true that local departments have come to depend on money from these forfeitures. Federal agencies reported more than $4.5 billion worth of seized property in 2014, with some paid back to victims but much more shared with local, state and federal law enforcement. In Texas, the annual total seized by state and local officials was over $63 million in 2013. Local officials have been dinged in the past for violating rules on how to spend the money, too. No wonder officials like Rockwall County Sheriff Harold Eavenson like the program. But his decision to squander his time with the president to complain about reform efforts was a poor one. The bills filed to fix this situation need help, not scorn. Perhaps the best bill this session has been filed by Sen. Konni Burton, a Colleyville Republican. SB 380 would require that seized property be returned unless the suspect is convicted of a crime. Even then, the owner would be entitled to a hearing to determine whether the value of the seized properly is massively out of proportion to the crime itself. The bill, which reasonably includes a dozen or so broadly worded exceptions, also would require the government to return property to third parties who were not convicted, unless it can show they were somehow involved or had knowledge of the crime. Civil forfeiture is a national scandal, and reforms are needed by Congress too. But Texas lawmakers have the chance to clean up our house first, and they should do so while the current Legislature meets. LETTERS POLICY The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Submitted letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number. Send letters to 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com. OTHER VIEWS Time to hit the campaign trail Trump the vehicle to explain an resident Trump’s many critics say impressive set of actions. his young administration is a hot Trump’s immigration enforcement mess. His defenders say Trump order, for example, is a remarkable has accomplished more in three weeks change in direction for the nation’s than many presidents do in years. border and interior enforcement. At the moment Trump is in what The ending of so-called “catch-and- might be called the executive-action release” policies, the speeding up phase of his presidency. Beyond of deportations of criminal illegal fighting for his Cabinet appointments Byron immigrants, the crackdown on on Capitol Hill, everything Trump has York sanctuary cities — all of that could done has relied solely on his executive Comment play well in parts of the country that power as president. At some point he’ll voted heavily for Trump. Why not have to move into a legislative phase, arrange a presidential visit or two? with the introduction of bills dealing with Likewise, Trump’s orders on regulations, health care, taxes, immigration and more. federal hiring, and Dodd-Frank represent a But for now, Trump has a number of package of actions Trump executive actions to point to: orders to 1) reduce could tout as not only easing the regulatory burdens the burden of government of Obamacare; 2) freeze on businesses but helping federal hiring; 3) pull the to create the jobs Trump United States out of the promised in the campaign. Trans-Pacific Partnership; Why not have the president 4) approve the Keystone tout them in those Rust Belt XL and Dakota Access states that put him over the pipelines; 5) strengthen top last November? enforcement of the nation’s Then there is the Trans- immigration laws; 6) Pacific Partnership order, authorize planning for a and Trump’s pledge to U.S.-Mexico border wall; re-open NAFTA. Those, too, 7) tighten White House ethics rules; 8) reduce are worth some presidential campaign stops. the number of federal regulations; 9) weaken As for Trump’s litigation-magnet order Dodd-Frank financial regulations; and 10) temporarily halting non-Americans from temporarily suspend immigration from some entering the U.S. from seven troubled terrorism-plagued nations. countries — the White House has clearly It’s a pretty solid list. The last, called a suggested that it ultimately plans to amend “Muslim ban” by detractors, has attracted or rewrite the order to fix some of its legal the most attention — and litigation. But each weaknesses. When that is done, Trump would item on Trump’s list would be worth a White do well to campaign for that order, too. While House rollout and promotion campaign. the courts work on a separate track, public Instead, Trump threw them out in a firehose support would be a huge benefit for Trump, of appearances, tweets, and controversy. And and by aggressively defending a reasonable Trump regularly distracted from his own national security measure, he could put his message by doing something to set off what critics on the defensive, or at least force them might be called the Daily Agitation — the to focus on the substance of the order. frenzy of media and opposition politicians Of course, Trump rallies will attract reacting to whatever the president has said protesters. Indeed, the Trump adversaries who most recently. now style themselves The Resistance would Now, Trump is preparing more action. like to shut down any Trump appearance. But (And in the case of the immigration the president has the best security in the world. suspension, action to repair the first action.) It can keep the worst elements out. Of course, If his first weeks in office have taught the Trump will have hecklers who interrupt his new president anything, it is that far-reaching speech. But as the president outlines a solid presidential directives are complicated and reasonable policy, as a matter of optics it things and need care and preparation. So would not hurt to have a screaming maniac Trump appears ready to slow the process of trying to shut him down. introducing new actions. And if there are crowds outside harassing And while he is doing that, what would attendees, trying to stop traffic, and making most benefit Trump would be to sell what he life miserable for people nearby? That has already done. wouldn’t hurt Trump a bit, either. During the campaign, Trump developed a In more than a year on the trail, Trump fondness for performing in front of big rallies. improved as a campaigner. After delivering By many reports, he didn’t love the drudgery wildly improvisational performances in the that accompanied campaigning, but he liked early months of the campaign, candidate the rallies. Trump developed a style in which he used ad Why not start holding rallies again? It’s libs to embellish a Teleprompter speech with a not unusual for presidents to take to the focused message. He undoubtedly remembers campaign trail to promote their initiatives. All how to do it. presidents have done it, from their post-State- Facing united Democratic opposition, a of-the-Union tours to campaigning for specific Trump resistance wing within the GOP and a initiatives, like Obamacare (successfully for mostly hostile media, Trump, after just weeks President Obama) and Social Security reform in the White House, is in a political fight for (unsuccessfully for President Bush). So hitting survival. The campaign stump is one of his the trail would be nothing unusual for Trump. most effective weapons. A leader explains what he is doing, and ■ then explains again, and then explains again. Byron York is chief political correspondent Campaigning for his initiatives would give for The Washington Examiner. P A leader explains what he is doing, and then explains again, and then explains again. YOUR VIEWS Walden sides with energy companies over planet health Most climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, that human activity contributes to that process and that there isn’t much time left before it becomes irreversible. We’re at a point where we don’t get to pick and choose which steps we take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to take them all, now. Representative Greg Walden doesn’t seem to see it that way. On Feb. 3, he voted to disapprove the BLM regulation requiring oil and gas drillers on public lands to limit the amount of methane they vent or flare from drilling sites. He gave two reasons for his vote. The first was that the regulations exceeded the authority of the BLM. The second was that greenhouse gas emissions from forest fires are more significant, even though methane holds 20 times more heat in the atmosphere than CO2 released by fire. I believe he was wrong on both accounts. Did the BLM exceed its authority in issuing the regulation? A U.S. District Judge in Wyoming says the BLM has that authority. An analysis in The Denver Post (Feb. 2) points out that the BLM is charged to ensure taxpayers receive a fair return from federal leases. If drilling gases are captured rather than wasted, their sale results in royalties for state, federal and tribal governments, helping to fulfill the charge. Many drilling companies already capture methane. We can’t wait for other drillers to adopt those practices at their leisure? Congressman Walden should have voted “nay.” As for the role of forest fires in greenhouse gas emissions, the congressman is right that globally, forest fires have a significant impact. That’s one of the reasons we need to remain an active participant in the Paris Climate Accords so we continue to provide leadership to the rest of the world. But the rate of release in the U.S. from forest fires is much smaller. A 2010 OSU study estimated U.S. fires account for only 3 percent of U.S. industrial and fossil fuel emissions over the decade studied. The congressman should continue to work with federal agencies to improve reclamation and replanting in forest fire areas so they quickly return to capturing carbon rather than releasing it. But he also needs to work with his colleagues in the House and Senate to speed us in controlling emissions on all fronts, not just in forests. Lindsay Winsor Milton-Freewater
