Letter to Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency - Daines Calls on EPA to Reverse Wage Garnishment Rule

Letter

Representative Steve Daines today called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reverse their new overreaching claim on authority to unilaterally garnish wages of those the agency accuses of violating its rules.

The EPA recently claimed that it has authority to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order." More, the EPA has said the rule was not subject to review because it is not a "significant regulatory action."

In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Daines led more than 20 House members in calling on the agency to reverse its claim and respect Montanans' right to due process.

"The process for challenging fines and wage garnishment is not satisfactory because it allows the agency to decide if the accused can even present a defense," Daines wrote. "I ask that you reverse your decision and not follow through with this rule and by doing so, respect the right to due process under the law that is guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution."

Daines expressed his concerns with the increasingly punitive nature of the EPA. According to their annual reports, the amount of fines collected by the agency has gone from $96 million in 2009 to $252 million in 2013.

"Though I agree stakeholders must be responsible and the EPA should enforce rules reasonably, the more than 160 percent increase in a span of only four years indicates that some of these fines may have been excessive," Daines added.

The agency quietly announced the rule last week in a notice in the Federal Register and has fast-tracked the rule to take effect on September 2, unless there is sufficient opposing comment from the public by August 1.

Daines has long fought to protect Montanans from EPA overreach. He has introduced legislation to increase oversight of the agency and curtail its power to unilaterally impose job-killing regulations on Montana's energy industry.

Full text of Daines' letter below:

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

We are writing to express our deep concerns with a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim to have authority to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order."

This claim seems to violate American citizens' Constitutionally-guaranteed right to due process by placing the burden of proof on the debtor, rather than the agency. The process for challenging fines and wage garnishment is not satisfactory because it allows the agency to decide if the accused can even present a defense.

The increasingly punitive nature of the agency is also of concern. According to the agency's annual reports, the amount of fines collected by the EPA has gone from $96 million in 2009 to $252 million in 2013. Though we agree stakeholders must be responsible and the EPA should enforce rules reasonably, the more than 160 percent increase in a span of only four years indicates that some of these fines may have been excessive.

The EPA has said the rule was not subject to review because it is not a "significant regulatory action." But it has recently been reported that a Wyoming homeowner was threatened with a $75,000 fine for building a pond on his property. That might seem like a drop in the bucket to a bureaucratic agency with a multi-billion dollar budget, but for the vast majority of Americans, $75,000 is a lot of money. The proposed rule would make it both more difficult to dispute such fines and provide incentive for the EPA to issue penalties against more Americans. Its impact, therefore, would certainly create "significant" hardships on affected individuals.

The agency has fast-tracked the rule to take effect on September 2nd, 2014 absent sufficient opposing comment by August 1st, 2014. We are writing to voice our strongest opposition to the rule and the EPA's inadequate engagement with the public concerning it. Further, we ask that you reverse your decision and not follow through with this rule. By doing so, your agency will demonstrate respect for the right to due process under the law that is guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution.

Source