The Wall Street Journal
Copyright (c) 1996, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Thursday, October 17, 1996
The EPA's Latest Power Grab
By James Bovard
President Clinton is proposing to allow the Environmental Protection Agency
to confiscate the
assets of suspected polluters. Complying with environmental laws already costs
individuals,
businesses and state and local governments more than $168 billion a year, according
to the Small
Business Administration. Yet the administration is apparently not satisfied
with financially
bleeding corporations and individuals to death: It wants to come in and seize
the bodies, too.
The kind of asset-forfeiture law Mr. Clinton is proposing allows confiscation
via accusation: A
federal agent need only accuse a person of an illegal act for that person's
house, land or car
effectively to become the property of the federal government. In most forfeiture
proceedings, the
person accused must prove that his house, car or the cash in his wallet was
not involved in a crime
or other violation -- the government has no obligation to prove that the property
is "guilty."
Government agencies routinely rely on hearsay evidence to justify such seizures;
a rumor that a
corporation may have broken some obscure regulation could alone lead to a plundering
of its assets.
Mr. Clinton made his proposal to expand forfeiture power in an August speech
in Kalamazoo,
Mich. An "Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act" his administration
submitted to Congress
last month would allow the Justice Department to freeze a corporation's assets
prior to trial. His
approach flies in the face of bipartisan efforts -- led by House Judiciary Committee
Chairman
Henry Hyde -- to rein in federal forfeiture powers, already contained in more
than 100 statutes. A
federal appeals court complained in 1992 that it was "troubled by the government's
view that any
property, whether it be a hobo's hovel or the Empire State Building, can be
seized by the
government because the owner, regardless of his or her past criminal record,
engages in a single
drug transaction."
It is precisely the equation of corporations with drug dealers that the EPA
is already using to build
support for its latest power grab. On Aug. 28 EPA Administrator Carol Browner
declared on
CNN that corporate polluters should be treated just like drug dealers: "If
you're polluting the
public's air and water, then the benefits you derive, the assets you have, can
be taken. This is what
the president is proposing."
If anyone has any doubts about how the EPA would use the new forfeiture power,
look at the
Superfund -- a program that often is simply robbery with an environmental badge.
Though the
EPA does not have forfeiture powers under Superfund, it does have the power
to impose liability
on almost anyone it chooses. And because the EPA relies on the legal doctrine
of "joint and
several liability," anyone who sent anything to a dump that later became
a Superfund site can be
held personally liable for the entire cleanup cost of that dump.
Under the law, the EPA has effectively no burden to prove that a company sent
waste to a
Superfund site; instead, the company must prove itself innocent of ever having
sent anything to a
site. At the Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard site in Cortland, N.Y., the EPA selected
its lawsuit targets
largely based on scrap yard employees' memories of what had happened 20 years
earlier.
Similarly, the EPA notified Formal Ware Rental Services of Tulsa, Okla., that
it would be held
responsible for the cleanup of a local Superfund site; the only evidence linking
the clothing rental
company to the site was the fact that it had paid someone $14 in 1972 to haul
trash there. The
EPA has also fingered a Boy Scout troop as a "potentially responsible party"
to finance the clean
up of a Superfund-designated scrap yard in Minneapolis.
The EPA would likely use its new forfeiture power in the same way that the
Interior Department's
Fish and Wildlife Service uses its forfeiture power under the Endangered Species
Act. For
example: On March 10, 1992, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state agents
drove 15 miles onto
Richard Smith's Texas ranch, accused him of poisoning eagles, and seized his
pick-up truck. The
agents later tracked down Mr. Smith's 75-year-old father, W.B. Smith, and seized
his pickup
truck -- threatening to strand him 10 miles from town. The agents produced no
evidence to
support their accusation and returned the trucks nine months later without filing
charges. The
elder Mr. Smith complained: "The Fish and Wildlife Service is out of control,
and the Endangered
Species Act has given them the tools to destroy the ranching industry."
Some environmental activists are already seeking to abuse forfeiture laws in
environmental
disputes. On Sept. 27, former California Gov. Jerry Brown told protesters fighting
to block any
logging of a redwood forest: "You plant a hundred marijuana plants in the
Headwaters, and you
know what the federal government would do -- confiscate the forest. So you know
what to do." If
the EPA gets the proposed forfeiture power, environmental activists may be able
to compel
federal control of an area simply by pouring a few quarts of used motor oil
on a driveway or yard.
If the EPA gets into the property-forfeiture business, it will become vulnerable
to the same
corrupting incentives affecting other federal agencies that share confiscated
property with state
and local agencies. The Justice Department announced in January, for instance,
that for the first
time, local and state law enforcement agencies would be allowed to use the proceeds
from joint
local-state-federal forfeitures to pay police salaries. That decision was harshly
criticized by some
law-enforcement officials who feared that it would lead to "bounty hunting"
-- policemen devoting
their time to seizing property rather than fighting crimes. Pay raises, anyone?
Mr. Clinton's plan to expand government's forfeiture power is only his administration's
latest
attempt to cure every problem with federal power. Yet neither he nor the EPA
has done anything
to show that the federal government can be trusted with such immense powers.
---
Mr. Bovard is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The Wall Street Journal
Copyright (c) 1996, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Friday, November 1, 1996
Letters to the Editor: Protecting the Victims Of Environmental Crime
James Bovard's Oct. 17 editorial-page article "The EPA's Latest Power
Grab" is remarkably
inaccurate. The Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act of 1996, if passed,
would authorize
federal courts to order those charged with environmental crimes not to conceal
or dissipate assets
needed to pay for damage caused by their crimes.
The government must first show probable cause that assets will be concealed
or dissipated, and
that the assets are necessary to repair environmental harm. A defendant can
avoid such an order
by showing that other assets are available to fix the harm, or that the harm
has already been
remedied. This authority is nothing new. The bill simply makes explicit authority
already available
to courts under the All Writs Act.
The bill clarifies the authority of federal courts to order restitution, but
the defendant keeps
possession of all assets until convicted and ordered to pay a fine or restitution.
Notwithstanding
Mr. Bovard's assertions to the contrary, the bill does not authorize EPA to
seize anything.
This balanced and reasonable approach would assure that the convicted criminal,
rather than the
taxpayer, pays for cleanups. Environmental crimes are real crimes with victims
who deserve
protection from pollution. In these and other ways, the bill would help assure
that protection. The
Justice Department looks forward to speedy passage in the 105th Congress.
Lois J. Schiffer
Environment and Natural
Resources Division
Department of Justice
Washington
The Wall Street Journal
Copyright (c) 1996, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Tuesday, November 12, 1996
Letters to the Editor: Green Raiders Could Seize Assets
I was amused by the Nov. 1 Letter from Lois Schiffer, director of the Justice
Department's
Environment and Natural Resources Division, who claimed that my Oct. 17 editorial-page
article
"The EPA's Latest Power Grab" was "remarkably inaccurate";
in the piece, I discussed the Clinton
administration's calls for forfeiture power over corporations that are accused
of violating
environmental laws
However, the Justice Department's reply seems to be based on a breathtaking
fiction -- pretending
that Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner does not exist. Ms.
Browner declared
on national television on Aug. 28: "You know, right now, if you're running
drugs in this country
and you are caught, your assets can be taken -- there is something called 'asset
forfeiture.' Well,
we think the same should be true for the polluter. If you're polluting the public's
air and water,
then the benefits you derive, the assets you have can be taken. That is what
the president is
proposing." Greenwire, an environmental news service, correctly noted the
following day that Ms.
Browner's proposal was "sure to be controversial." Neither Ms. Browner
nor anyone else in the
EPA has given any indication that her agency and the administration do not stand
by her statement.
Justice has offered no reason why Ms. Browner's comments should not be taken
as an expression
of the administration's intent on environmental policy. If the secretary of
housing proposed that
the government should be permitted to confiscate private apartment houses because
of alleged
violations of an obscure housing regulation, then that would be news. Given
the pervasive abuses
of federal forfeiture power that have already occurred, we have a right to be
apprehensive when
the EPA director calls for the use of forfeiture power against environmental
law violators.
Assistant Attorney General Schiffer's letter focuses on the details of a bill
that the administration
submitted to Congress on Sept. 18. The administration knew this Congress would
not have time
to act on the bill, so the proposal was a mere formality, perhaps simply another
effort to create an
applause line in Bill Clinton's campaign speeches. However, there is no reason
to presume that the
administration will not propose a more sweeping, punitive bill when the new
Congress convenes
in January.
My article correctly stated that the bill proposed would give the federal government
the power to
freeze an accused corporation's assets before trial. This is a very serious
power that would
significantly increase federal agents' power to browbeat, intimidate and abuse
business owners and
individuals. Indeed, a White House press release on Aug. 28 declared that the
administration's bill
"will ensure that the assets of environment criminals can be secured even
before conviction. . . ."
[emphasis added]. In other areas of law, the power of federal prosecutors to
freeze assets
routinely destroys an individual's or a corporation's ability to mount a defense
against criminal
charges, thereby making it easier to get a conviction and get a judge's permission
to permanently
seize assets. This gives the government power to effectively punish people before
any finding of
guilt by an independent federal judge.
Ms. Schiffer states that, under the president's legislation, the "government
must first show
probable cause that assets will be concealed or dissipated." However, "probable
cause" is a very
low standard of proof and often can be satisfied by the mere assertion of some
unidentified
confidential government informant. Also, the new Clinton environmental bill
would allow the
government to conduct sting operations against corporations to lure them into
violating
environmental laws, a power that has also been grossly abused by federal prosecutors
in the past.
Unless and until Ms. Browner comes forward and repudiates her Aug. 28 comments,
there is no
reason to assume that the Clinton administration is not seeking forfeiture power
over alleged
environmental violators.
James Bovard
Washington