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