[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 35 (Monday, March 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1753-S1762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1658, reported today by the 
Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1658) to provide a more just and uniform 
     procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, and for other 
     purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported by the Committee on the Judiciary with an 
amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the 
part printed in italic, as follows:

                               H.R. 1658

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Civil 
     Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

 Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
 Sec. 2. Creation of general rules relating to civil forfeiture 
              proceedings.
 Sec. 3. Compensation for damage to seized property.
 Sec. 4. Attorney fees, costs, and interest.
 Sec. 5. Seizure warrant requirement.
 Sec. 6. Use of forfeited funds to pay restitution to crime victims.
 Sec. 7. Civil forfeiture of real property.
 Sec. 8. Stay of civil forfeiture case.
 Sec. 9. Civil restraining orders.
 Sec. 10. Cooperation among Federal prosecutors.
 Sec. 11. Statute of limitations for civil forfeiture actions.
 Sec. 12. Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure.
 Sec. 13. Fungible property in bank accounts.
 Sec. 14. Fugitive disentitlement.
 Sec. 15. Enforcement of foreign forfeiture judgment.
 Sec. 16. Encouraging use of criminal forfeiture as an alternative to 
              civil forfeiture.
 Sec. 17. Access to records in bank secrecy jurisdictions
 Sec. 18. Application to alien smuggling offenses.
 Sec. 19. Enhanced visibility of the asset forfeiture program.
 Sec. 20. Proceeds.
 Sec. 21. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. CREATION OF GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CIVIL 
                   FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 46 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 982 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 983. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings

       ``(a) Notice; Claim; Complaint.--
       ``(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clauses (ii) through (v), 
     in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil 
     forfeiture statute, with respect to which the Government is 
     required to send written notice to interested parties, such 
     notice shall be sent in a manner to achieve proper notice as 
     soon as practicable, and in no case more than 60 days after 
     the date of the seizure.
       ``(ii) No notice is required if, before the 60-day period 
     expires, the Government files a civil judicial forfeiture 
     action against the property and provides notice of that 
     action as required by law.
       ``(iii) If, before the 60-day period expires, the 
     Government does not file a civil judicial forfeiture action, 
     but does obtain a criminal indictment containing an 
     allegation that the property is subject to forfeiture, the 
     government shall either--
       ``(I) send notice within the 60 days and continue the 
     nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under this section; 
     or
       ``(II) terminate the nonjudicial civil forfeiture 
     proceeding, and take the steps necessary to preserve its 
     right to maintain custody of the property as provided in the 
     applicable criminal forfeiture statute.
       ``(iv) In a case in which the property is seized by a State 
     or local law enforcement agency and turned over to a Federal 
     law enforcement agency for the purpose of forfeiture under 
     Federal law, notice shall be sent not more than 90 days after 
     the date of seizure by the State or local law enforcement 
     agency.
       ``(v) If the identity or interest of a party is not 
     determined until after the seizure or turnover but is 
     determined before a declaration of forfeiture is entered, 
     notice shall be sent to such interested party not later than 
     60 days after the determination by the Government of the 
     identity of the party or the party's interest.
       ``(B) A supervisory official in the headquarters office of 
     the seizing agency may extend the period for sending notice 
     under subparagraph (A) for a period not to exceed 30 days 
     (which period may not be further extended except by a court), 
     if the official determines that the conditions in 
     subparagraph (D) are present.
       ``(C) Upon motion by the Government, a court may extend the 
     period for sending notice under subparagraph (A) for a period 
     not to exceed 60 days, which period may be further extended 
     by the court for 60-day periods, as necessary, if the court 
     determines, based on a written certification of a supervisory 
     official in the headquarters office of the seizing agency, 
     that the conditions in subparagraph (D) are present.
       ``(D) The period for sending notice under this paragraph 
     may be extended only if there is reason to believe that 
     notice may have an adverse result, including--
       ``(i) endangering the life or physical safety of an 
     individual;
       ``(ii) flight from prosecution;
       ``(iii) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
       ``(iv) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
       ``(v) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or 
     unduly delaying a trial.
       ``(E) Each of the Federal seizing agencies conducting 
     nonjudicial forfeitures under this section shall report 
     periodically to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate the number of occasions 
     when an extension of time is granted under subparagraph (B).
       ``(F) If the Government does not send notice of a seizure 
     of property in accordance with subparagraph (A) to the person 
     from whom the property was seized, and no extension of time 
     is granted, the Government shall return the property to that 
     person without prejudice to the right of the Government to 
     commence a forfeiture proceeding at a later time. The 
     Government shall not be required to return contraband or 
     other property that the person from whom the property was 
     seized may not legally possess.
       ``(2)(A) Any person claiming property seized in a 
     nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil 
     forfeiture statute may file a claim with the appropriate 
     official after the seizure.
       ``(B) A claim under subparagraph (A) may be filed not later 
     than the deadline set forth in a personal notice letter 
     (which deadline may be not earlier than 35 days after the 
     date the letter is mailed), except that if that letter is not 
     received, then a claim may be filed not later than 30 days 
     after the date of final publication of notice of seizure.
       ``(C) A claim shall--
       ``(i) identify the specific property being claimed;

[[Page S1754]]

       ``(ii) state the claimant's interest in such property (and 
     provide customary documentary evidence of such interest if 
     available) and state that the claim is not frivolous; and
       ``(iii) be made under oath, subject to penalty of perjury.
       ``(D) A claim need not be made in any particular form. Each 
     Federal agency conducting nonjudicial forfeitures under this 
     section shall make claim forms generally available on 
     request, which forms shall be written in easily 
     understandable language.
       ``(E) Any person may make a claim under subparagraph (A) 
     without posting bond with respect to the property which is 
     the subject of the claim.
       ``(3)(A) Not later than 90 days after a claim has been 
     filed, the Government shall file a complaint for forfeiture 
     in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain 
     Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the property pending 
     the filing of a complaint, except that a court in the 
     district in which the complaint will be filed may extend the 
     period for filing a complaint for good cause shown or upon 
     agreement of the parties.
       ``(B) If the Government does not--
       ``(i) file a complaint for forfeiture or return the 
     property, in accordance with subparagraph (A); or
       ``(ii) before the time for filing a complaint has expired--
       ``(I) obtain a criminal indictment containing an allegation 
     that the property is subject to forfeiture; and
       ``(II) take the steps necessary to preserve its right to 
     maintain custody of the property as provided in the 
     applicable criminal forfeiture statute,

     the Government shall promptly release the property pursuant 
     to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, and may 
     not take any further action to effect the civil forfeiture of 
     such property in connection with the underlying offense.
       ``(C) In lieu of, or in addition to, filing a civil 
     forfeiture complaint, the Government may include a forfeiture 
     allegation in a criminal indictment. If criminal forfeiture 
     is the only forfeiture proceeding commenced by the 
     Government, the Government's right to continued possession of 
     the property shall be governed by the applicable criminal 
     forfeiture statute.
       ``(D) No complaint may be dismissed on the ground that the 
     Government did not have adequate evidence at the time the 
     complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of the 
     property.
       ``(4)(A) In any case in which the Government files in the 
     appropriate United States district court a complaint for 
     forfeiture of property, any person claiming an interest in 
     the seized property may file a claim asserting such person's 
     interest in the property in the manner set forth in the 
     Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, 
     except that such claim may be filed not later than 30 days 
     after the date of service of the Government's complaint or, 
     as applicable, not later than 30 days after the date of final 
     publication of notice of the filing of the complaint.
       ``(B) A person asserting an interest in seized property, in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A), shall file an answer to the 
     Government's complaint for forfeiture not later than 20 days 
     after the date of the filing of the claim.
       ``(b) Representation.--
       ``(1)(A) If a person with standing to contest the 
     forfeiture of property in a judicial civil forfeiture 
     proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute is financially 
     unable to obtain representation by counsel, and the person is 
     represented by counsel appointed under section 3006A of this 
     title in connection with a related criminal case, the court 
     may authorize counsel to represent that person with respect 
     to the claim.
       ``(B) In determining whether to authorize counsel to 
     represent a person under subparagraph (A), the court shall 
     take into account such factors as--
       ``(i) the person's standing to contest the forfeiture; and
       ``(ii) whether the claim appears to be made in good faith.
       ``(2)(A) If a person with standing to contest the 
     forfeiture of property in a judicial civil forfeiture 
     proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute is financially 
     unable to obtain representation by counsel, and the property 
     subject to forfeiture is real property that is being used by 
     the person as a primary residence, the court, at the request 
     of the person, shall insure that the person is represented by 
     an attorney for the Legal Services Corporation with respect 
     to the claim.
       ``(B)(i) At appropriate times during a representation under 
     subparagraph (A), the Legal Services Corporation shall submit 
     a statement of reasonable attorney fees and costs to the 
     court.
       ``(ii) The court shall enter a judgment in favor of the 
     Legal Services Corporation for reasonable attorney fees and 
     costs submitted pursuant to clause (i) and treat such 
     judgment as payable under section 2465 of title 28, United 
     States Code, regardless of the outcome of the case.
       ``(3) The court shall set the compensation for 
     representation under this subsection, which shall be 
     equivalent to that provided for court-appointed 
     representation under section 3006A of this title.
       ``(c) Burden of Proof.--In a suit or action brought under 
     any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any 
     property--
       ``(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to 
     establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
     property is subject to forfeiture;
       ``(2) the Government may use evidence gathered after the 
     filing of a complaint for forfeiture to establish, by a 
     preponderance of the evidence, that property is subject to 
     forfeiture; and
       ``(3) if the Government's theory of forfeiture is that the 
     property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a 
     criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a 
     criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there 
     was a substantial connection between the property and the 
     offense.
       ``(d) Innocent Owner Defense.--
       ``(1) An innocent owner's interest in property shall not be 
     forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant 
     shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an 
     innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.
       ``(2)(A) With respect to a property interest in existence 
     at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture 
     took place, the term `innocent owner' means an owner who--
       ``(i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to 
     forfeiture; or
       ``(ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the 
     forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under 
     the circumstances to terminate such use of the property.
       ``(B)(i) For the purposes of this paragraph, ways in which 
     a person may show that such person did all that reasonably 
     could be expected may include demonstrating that such person, 
     to the extent permitted by law--
       ``(I) gave timely notice to an appropriate law enforcement 
     agency of information that led the person to know the conduct 
     giving rise to a forfeiture would occur or has occurred; and
       ``(II) in a timely fashion revoked or made a good faith 
     attempt to revoke permission for those engaging in such 
     conduct to use the property or took reasonable actions in 
     consultation with a law enforcement agency to discourage or 
     prevent the illegal use of the property.
       ``(ii) A person is not required by this subparagraph to 
     take steps that the person reasonably believes would be 
     likely to subject any person (other than the person whose 
     conduct gave rise to the forfeiture) to physical danger.
       ``(3)(A) With respect to a property interest acquired after 
     the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture has taken place, 
     the term `innocent owner' means a person who, at the time 
     that person acquired the interest in the property--
       ``(i) was a bona fide purchaser or seller for value 
     (including a purchaser or seller of goods or services for 
     value); and
       ``(ii) did not know and was reasonably without cause to 
     believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.
       ``(B) An otherwise valid claim under subparagraph (A) shall 
     not be denied on the ground that the claimant gave nothing of 
     value in exchange for the property if--
       ``(i) the property is the primary residence of the 
     claimant;
       ``(ii) depriving the claimant of the property would deprive 
     the claimant of the means to maintain reasonable shelter in 
     the community for the claimant and all dependents residing 
     with the claimant;
       ``(iii) the property is not, and is not traceable to, the 
     proceeds of any criminal offense; and
       ``(iv) the claimant acquired his or her interest in the 
     property through marriage, divorce, or legal separation, or 
     the claimant was the spouse or legal dependent of a person 
     whose death resulted in the transfer of the property to the 
     claimant through inheritance or probate;
     except that the court shall limit the value of any real 
     property interest for which innocent ownership is recognized 
     under this subparagraph to the value necessary to maintain 
     reasonable shelter in the community for such claimant and all 
     dependents residing with the claimant.
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection, no 
     person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection 
     in contraband or other property that it is illegal to 
     possess.
       ``(5) If the court determines, in accordance with this 
     section, that an innocent owner has a partial interest in 
     property otherwise subject to forfeiture, or a joint tenancy 
     or tenancy by the entirety in such property, the court may 
     enter an appropriate order--
       ``(A) severing the property;
       ``(B) transferring the property to the Government with a 
     provision that the Government compensate the innocent owner 
     to the extent of his or her ownership interest once a final 
     order of forfeiture has been entered and the property has 
     been reduced to liquid assets; or
       ``(C) permitting the innocent owner to retain the property 
     subject to a lien in favor of the Government to the extent of 
     the forfeitable interest in the property.
       ``(6) In this subsection, the term `owner'--
       ``(A) means a person with an ownership interest in the 
     specific property sought to be forfeited, including a 
     leasehold, lien, mortgage, recorded security interest, or 
     valid assignment of an ownership interest; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) a person with only a general unsecured interest in, 
     or claim against, the property or estate of another;
       ``(ii) a bailee unless the bailor is identified and the 
     bailee shows a colorable legitimate interest in the property 
     seized; or
       ``(iii) a nominee who exercises no dominion or control over 
     the property.
       ``(e) Motion To Set Aside Forfeiture.--
       ``(1) Any person entitled to written notice in any 
     nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil 
     forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice may file 
     a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture with 
     respect to that person's interest in the property, which 
     motion shall be granted if--
       ``(A) the Government knew, or reasonably should have known, 
     of the moving party's interest and failed to take reasonable 
     steps to provide such party with notice; and
       ``(B) the moving party did not know or have reason to know 
     of the seizure within sufficient time to file a timely claim.
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding the expiration of any applicable 
     statute of limitations, if the court grants a motion under 
     paragraph (1), the court shall set aside the declaration of 
     forfeiture as to the interest of the moving party without 
     prejudice to the right of the Government to commence

[[Page S1755]]

     a subsequent forfeiture proceeding as to the interest of the 
     moving party.
       ``(B) Any proceeding described in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     commenced--
       ``(i) if nonjudicial, within 60 days of the entry of the 
     order granting the motion; or
       ``(ii) if judicial, within 6 months of the entry of the 
     order granting the motion.
       ``(3) A motion under paragraph (1) may be filed not later 
     than 5 years after the date of final publication of notice of 
     seizure of the property.
       ``(4) If, at the time a motion made under paragraph (1) is 
     granted, the forfeited property has been disposed of by the 
     Government in accordance with law, the Government may 
     institute proceedings against a substitute sum of money equal 
     to the value of the moving party's interest in the property 
     at the time the property was disposed of.
       ``(5) A motion filed under this subsection shall be the 
     exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a declaration of 
     forfeiture under a civil forfeiture statute.
       ``(f) Release Of Seized Property.--
       ``(1) A claimant under subsection (a) is entitled to 
     immediate release of seized property if--
       ``(A) the claimant has a possessory interest in the 
     property;
       ``(B) the claimant has sufficient ties to the community to 
     provide assurance that the property will be available at the 
     time of the trial;
       ``(C) the continued possession by the Government pending 
     the final disposition of forfeiture proceedings will cause 
     substantial hardship to the claimant, such as preventing the 
     functioning of a business, preventing an individual from 
     working, or leaving an individual homeless;
       ``(D) the claimant's likely hardship from the continued 
     possession by the Government of the seized property outweighs 
     the risk that the property will be destroyed, damaged, lost, 
     concealed, or transferred if it is returned to the claimant 
     during the pendency of the proceeding; and
       ``(E) none of the conditions set forth in paragraph (8) 
     applies.
       ``(2) A claimant seeking release of property under this 
     subsection must request possession of the property from the 
     appropriate official, and the request must set forth the 
     basis on which the requirements of paragraph (1) are met.
       ``(3)(A) If not later than 15 days after the date of a 
     request under paragraph (2) the property has not been 
     released, the claimant may file a petition in the district 
     court in which the complaint has been filed or, if no 
     complaint has been filed, in the district court in which the 
     seizure warrant was issued or in the district court for the 
     district in which the property was seized.
       ``(B) The petition described in subparagraph (A) shall set 
     forth--
       ``(i) the basis on which the requirements of paragraph (1) 
     are met; and
       ``(ii) the steps the claimant has taken to secure release 
     of the property from the appropriate official.
       ``(4) If the Government establishes that the claimant's 
     claim is frivolous, the court shall deny the petition. In 
     responding to a petition under this subsection on other 
     grounds, the Government may in appropriate cases submit 
     evidence ex parte in order to avoid disclosing any matter 
     that may adversely affect an ongoing criminal investigation 
     or pending criminal trial.
       ``(5) The court shall render a decision on a petition filed 
     under paragraph (3) not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the filing, unless such 30-day limitation is extended by 
     consent of the parties or by the court for good cause shown.
       ``(6) If--
       ``(A) a petition is filed under paragraph (3); and
       ``(B) the claimant demonstrates that the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) have been met;

     the district court shall order that the property be returned 
     to the claimant, pending completion of proceedings by the 
     Government to obtain forfeiture of the property.
       ``(7) If the court grants a petition under paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) the court may enter any order necessary to ensure 
     that the value of the property is maintained while the 
     forfeiture action is pending, including--
       ``(i) permitting the inspection, photographing, and 
     inventory of the property;
       ``(ii) fixing a bond in accordance with rule E(5) of the 
     Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims; 
     and
       ``(iii) requiring the claimant to obtain or maintain 
     insurance on the subject property; and
       ``(B) the Government may place a lien against the property 
     or file a lis pendens to ensure that the property is not 
     transferred to another person.
       ``(8) This subsection shall not apply if the seized 
     property--
       ``(A) is contraband, currency, or other monetary 
     instrument, or electronic funds unless such currency or other 
     monetary instrument or electronic funds constitutes the 
     assets of a legitimate business which has been seized;
       ``(B) is to be used as evidence of a violation of the law;
       ``(C) by reason of design or other characteristic, is 
     particularly suited for use in illegal activities; or
       ``(D) is likely to be used to commit additional criminal 
     acts if returned to the claimant.
       ``(g) Proportionality.--
       ``(1) The claimant under subsection (a)(4) may petition the 
     court to determine whether the forfeiture was 
     constitutionally excessive.
       ``(2) In making this determination, the court shall compare 
     the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to 
     the forfeiture.
       ``(3) The claimant shall have the burden of establishing 
     that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional by a 
     preponderance of the evidence at a hearing conducted by the 
     court without a jury.
       ``(4) If the court finds that the forfeiture is grossly 
     disproportional to the offense it shall reduce or eliminate 
     the forfeiture as necessary to avoid a violation of the 
     Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the 
     Constitution.
       ``(h) Civil Fine.--
       ``(1) In any civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil 
     forfeiture statute in which the Government prevails, if the 
     court finds that the claimant's assertion of an interest in 
     the property was frivolous, the court may impose a civil fine 
     on the claimant of an amount equal to 10 percent of the value 
     of the forfeited property, but in no event shall the fine be 
     less than $250 or greater than $5,000.
       ``(2) Any civil fine imposed under this subsection shall 
     not preclude the court from imposing sanctions under rule 11 
     of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(3) In addition to the limitations of section 1915 of 
     title 28, United States Code, in no event shall a prisoner 
     file a claim under a civil forfeiture statute or appeal a 
     judgment in a civil action or proceeding based on a civil 
     forfeiture statute if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 
     occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 
     brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States 
     that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous or 
     malicious, unless the prisoner shows extraordinary and 
     exceptional circumstances.
       ``(i) Civil Forfeiture Statute Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `civil forfeiture statute'--
       ``(1) means any provision of Federal law providing for the 
     forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon 
     conviction of a criminal offense; and
       ``(2) does not include--
       ``(A) the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law 
     codified in title 19;
       ``(B) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(C) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     301 et seq.);
       ``(D) the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et 
     seq.); or
       ``(E) section 1 of title VI of the Act of June 15, 1917 (40 
     Stat. 233; 22 U.S.C. 401).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 982 the 
     following:

``983. General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings.''.

       (c) Striking Superseded Provisions.--
       (1) Civil forfeiture.--Section 981(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2).
       (2) Drug forfeitures.--Paragraphs (4), (6) and (7) of 
     section 511(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     881(a) (4), (6) and (7)) are each amended by striking ``, 
     except that'' and all that follows before the period at the 
     end.
       (3) Automobiles.--Section 518 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 888) is repealed.
       (4) Forfeitures in connection with sexual exploitation of 
     children.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2254(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, are each amended by striking ``, 
     except that'' and all that follows before the period at the 
     end.
       (d) Legal Services Corporation Representation.--Section 
     1007(a) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2996f(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) In paragraph (10), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) ensure that an indigent individual whose primary 
     residence is subject to civil forfeiture is represented by an 
     attorney for the Corporation in such civil action.''

      SEC. 3. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO SEIZED PROPERTY.

       (a) Tort Claims Act.--Section 2680(c) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``any goods or merchandise'' and inserting 
     ``any goods, merchandise, or other property'';
       (2) by striking ``law-enforcement'' and inserting ``law 
     enforcement''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that the provisions of this chapter and 
     section 1346(b) of this title apply to any claim based on 
     injury or loss of goods, merchandise, or other property, 
     while in the possession of any officer of customs or excise 
     or any other law enforcement officer, if--
       ``(1) the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture 
     under any provision of Federal law providing for the 
     forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon 
     conviction of a criminal offense;
       ``(2) the interest of the claimant was not forfeited;
       ``(3) the interest of the claimant was not remitted or 
     mitigated (if the property was subject to forfeiture); and
       ``(4) the claimant was not convicted of a crime for which 
     the interest of the claimant in the property was subject to 
     forfeiture under a Federal criminal forfeiture law.''.
       (b) Department of Justice.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to a claim that cannot be 
     settled under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, 
     the Attorney General may settle, for not more than $50,000 in 
     any case, a claim for damage to, or loss of, privately owned 
     property caused by an investigative or law enforcement 
     officer (as defined in section 2680(h) of title 28, United 
     States Code) who is employed by the Department of Justice 
     acting within the scope of his or her employment.
       (2) Limitations.--The Attorney General may not pay a claim 
     under paragraph (1) that--

[[Page S1756]]

       (A) is presented to the Attorney General more than 1 year 
     after it accrues; or
       (B) is presented by an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government and arose within the scope of employment.

      SEC. 4. ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND INTEREST.

       (a) In general.--Section 2465 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2465. Return of property to claimant; liability for 
       wrongful seizure; attorney fees, costs, and interest

       ``(a) Upon the entry of a judgment for the claimant in any 
     proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized or arrested 
     under any provision of Federal law--
       ``(1) such property shall be returned forthwith to the 
     claimant or his agent; and
       ``(2) if it appears that there was reasonable cause for the 
     seizure or arrest, the court shall cause a proper certificate 
     thereof to be entered and, in such case, neither the person 
     who made the seizure or arrest nor the prosecutor shall be 
     liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or 
     prosecution, nor shall the claimant be entitled to costs, 
     except as provided in subsection (b).
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any civil 
     proceeding to forfeit property under any provision of Federal 
     law in which the claimant substantially prevails, the United 
     States shall be liable for--
       ``(A) reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs 
     reasonably incurred by the claimant;
       ``(B) post-judgment interest, as set forth in section 1961 
     of this title; and
       ``(C) in cases involving currency, other negotiable 
     instruments, or the proceeds of an interlocutory sale--
       ``(i) interest actually paid to the United States from the 
     date of seizure or arrest of the property that resulted from 
     the investment of the property in an interest-bearing account 
     or instrument; and
       ``(ii) an imputed amount of interest that such currency, 
     instruments, or proceeds would have earned at the rate 
     applicable to the 30-day Treasury Bill, for any period during 
     which no interest was paid (not including any period when the 
     property reasonably was in use as evidence in an official 
     proceeding or in conducting scientific tests for the purpose 
     of collecting evidence), commencing 15 days after the 
     property was seized by a Federal law enforcement agency, or 
     was turned over to a Federal law enforcement agency by a 
     State or local law enforcement agency.
       ``(2)(A) The United States shall not be required to 
     disgorge the value of any intangible benefits nor make any 
     other payments to the claimant not specifically authorized by 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply if 
     the claimant is convicted of a crime for which the interest 
     of the claimant in the property was subject to forfeiture 
     under a Federal criminal forfeiture law.
       ``(C) If there are multiple claims to the same property, 
     the United States shall not be liable for costs and attorneys 
     fees associated with any such claim if the United States--
       ``(i) promptly recognizes such claim;
       ``(ii) promptly returns the interest of the claimant in the 
     property to the claimant, if the property can be divided 
     without difficulty and there are no competing claims to that 
     portion of the property;
       ``(iii) does not cause the claimant to incur additional, 
     reasonable costs or fees; and
       ``(iv) prevails in obtaining forfeiture with respect to one 
     or more of the other claims.
       ``(D) If the court enters judgment in part for the claimant 
     and in part for the Government, the court shall reduce the 
     award of costs and attorney fees accordingly.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 163 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 2465 and inserting 
     following:

``2465. Return of property to claimant; liability for wrongful seizure; 
              attorney fees, costs, and interest.''.

      SEC. 5. SEIZURE WARRANT REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 981(b) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in section 985, any property 
     subject to forfeiture to the United States under subsection 
     (a) may be seized by the Attorney General and, in the case of 
     property involved in a violation investigated by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury or the United States Postal 
     Service, the property may also be seized by the Secretary of 
     the Treasury or the Postal Service, respectively.
       ``(2) Seizures pursuant to this section shall be made 
     pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as provided 
     for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure, except that a seizure may be made without a 
     warrant if--
       ``(A) a complaint for forfeiture has been filed in the 
     United States district court and the court issued an arrest 
     warrant in rem pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain 
     Admiralty and Maritime Claims;
       ``(B) there is probable cause to believe that the property 
     is subject to forfeiture and--
       ``(i) the seizure is made pursuant to a lawful arrest or 
     search; or
       ``(ii) another exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant 
     requirement would apply; or
       ``(C) the property was lawfully seized by a State or local 
     law enforcement agency and transferred to a Federal agency.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule 41(a) of the 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a seizure warrant may be 
     issued pursuant to this subsection by a judicial officer in 
     any district in which a forfeiture action against the 
     property may be filed under section 1355(b) of title 28, and 
     may be executed in any district in which the property is 
     found, or transmitted to the central authority of any foreign 
     state for service in accordance with any treaty or other 
     international agreement. Any motion for the return of 
     property seized under this section shall be filed in the 
     district court in which the seizure warrant was issued or in 
     the district court for the district in which the property was 
     seized.
       ``(4)(A) If any person is arrested or charged in a foreign 
     country in connection with an offense that would give rise to 
     the forfeiture of property in the United States under this 
     section or under the Controlled Substances Act, the Attorney 
     General may apply to any Federal judge or magistrate judge in 
     the district in which the property is located for an ex parte 
     order restraining the property subject to forfeiture for not 
     more than 30 days, except that the time may be extended for 
     good cause shown at a hearing conducted in the manner 
     provided in rule 43(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure.
       ``(B) The application for the restraining order shall set 
     forth the nature and circumstances of the foreign charges and 
     the basis for belief that the person arrested or charged has 
     property in the United States that would be subject to 
     forfeiture, and shall contain a statement that the 
     restraining order is needed to preserve the availability of 
     property for such time as is necessary to receive evidence 
     from the foreign country or elsewhere in support of probable 
     cause for the seizure of the property under this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Drug Forfeitures.--Section 511(b) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Seizure Procedures.--Any property subject to 
     forfeiture to the United States under this section may be 
     seized by the Attorney General in the manner set forth in 
     section 981(b) of title 18, United States Code.''.

      SEC. 6. USE OF FORFEITED FUNDS TO PAY RESTITUTION TO CRIME 
                   VICTIMS.

       Section 981(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6) as restoration to any victim of the offense giving 
     rise to the forfeiture, including, in the case of a money 
     laundering offense, any offense constituting the underlying 
     specified unlawful activity; or''.

      SEC. 7. CIVIL FORFEITURE OF REAL PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 46 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 984 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 985. Civil forfeiture of real property

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all civil 
     forfeitures of real property and interests in real property 
     shall proceed as judicial forfeitures.
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in this section--
       ``(A) real property that is the subject of a civil 
     forfeiture action shall not be seized before entry of an 
     order of forfeiture; and
       ``(B) the owners or occupants of the real property shall 
     not be evicted from, or otherwise deprived of the use and 
     enjoyment of, real property that is the subject of a pending 
     forfeiture action.
       ``(2) The filing of a lis pendens and the execution of a 
     writ of entry for the purpose of conducting an inspection and 
     inventory of the property shall not be considered a seizure 
     under this subsection.
       ``(c)(1) The Government shall initiate a civil forfeiture 
     action against real property by--
       ``(A) filing a complaint for forfeiture;
       ``(B) posting a notice of the complaint on the property; 
     and
       ``(C) serving notice on the property owner, along with a 
     copy of the complaint.
       ``(2) If the property owner cannot be served with the 
     notice under paragraph (1) because the owner--
       ``(A) is a fugitive;
       ``(B) resides outside the United States and efforts at 
     service pursuant to rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure are unavailing; or
       ``(C) cannot be located despite the exercise of due 
     diligence,

     constructive service may be made in accordance with the laws 
     of the State in which the property is located.
       ``(3) If real property has been posted in accordance with 
     this subsection, it shall not be necessary for the court to 
     issue an arrest warrant in rem, or to take any other action 
     to establish in rem jurisdiction over the property.
       ``(d)(1) Real property may be seized prior to the entry of 
     an order of forfeiture if--
       ``(A) the Government notifies the court that it intends to 
     seize the property before trial; and
       ``(B) the court--
       ``(i) issues a notice of application for warrant, causes 
     the notice to be served on the property owner and posted on 
     the property, and conducts a hearing in which the property 
     owner has a meaningful opportunity to be heard; or
       ``(ii) makes an ex parte determination that there is 
     probable cause for the forfeiture and that there are exigent 
     circumstances that permit the Government to seize the 
     property without prior notice and an opportunity for the 
     property owner to be heard.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), to establish 
     exigent circumstances, the Government shall show that less 
     restrictive measures such as a lis pendens, restraining 
     order, or bond would not suffice to protect the Government's 
     interests in preventing the sale, destruction, or continued 
     unlawful use of the real property.
       ``(e) If the court authorizes a seizure of real property 
     under subsection (d)(1)(B)(ii), it shall conduct a prompt 
     post-seizure hearing during which the property owner shall 
     have an opportunity to contest the basis for the seizure.
       ``(f) This section--
       ``(1) applies only to civil forfeitures of real property 
     and interests in real property;

[[Page S1757]]

       ``(2) does not apply to forfeitures of the proceeds of the 
     sale of such property or interests, or of money or other 
     assets intended to be used to acquire such property or 
     interests; and
       ``(3) shall not affect the authority of the court to enter 
     a restraining order relating to real property.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 984 the 
     following:

``985. Civil forfeiture of real property.''.

      SEC. 8. STAY OF CIVIL FORFEITURE CASE.

       (a) In General.--Section 981(g) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g)(1) Upon the motion of the United States, the court 
     shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if the court 
     determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the 
     ability of the Government to conduct a related criminal 
     investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case.
       ``(2) Upon the motion of a claimant, the court shall stay 
     the civil forfeiture proceeding with respect to that claimant 
     if the court determines that--
       ``(A) the claimant is the subject of a related criminal 
     investigation or case;
       ``(B) the claimant has standing to assert a claim in the 
     civil forfeiture proceeding; and
       ``(C) continuation of the forfeiture proceeding will burden 
     the right of the claimant against self-incrimination in the 
     related investigation or case.
       ``(3) With respect to the impact of civil discovery 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2), the court may determine 
     that a stay is unnecessary if a protective order limiting 
     discovery would protect the interest of 1 party without 
     unfairly limiting the ability of the opposing party to pursue 
     the civil case. In no case, however, shall the court impose a 
     protective order as an alternative to a stay if the effect of 
     such protective order would be to allow 1 party to pursue 
     discovery while the other party is substantially unable to do 
     so.
       ``(4) In this subsection, the terms `related criminal case' 
     and `related criminal investigation' mean an actual 
     prosecution or investigation in progress at the time at which 
     the request for the stay, or any subsequent motion to lift 
     the stay is made. In determining whether a criminal case or 
     investigation is `related' to a civil forfeiture proceeding, 
     the court shall consider the degree of similarity between the 
     parties, witnesses, facts, and circumstances involved in the 
     2 proceedings, without requiring an identity with respect to 
     any 1 or more factors.
       ``(5) In requesting a stay under paragraph (1), the 
     Government may, in appropriate cases, submit evidence ex 
     parte in order to avoid disclosing any matter that may 
     adversely affect an ongoing criminal investigation or pending 
     criminal trial.
       ``(6) Whenever a civil forfeiture proceeding is stayed 
     pursuant to this subsection, the court shall enter any order 
     necessary to preserve the value of the property or to protect 
     the rights of lienholders or other persons with an interest 
     in the property while the stay is in effect.
       ``(7) A determination by the court that the claimant has 
     standing to request a stay pursuant to paragraph (2) shall 
     apply only to this subsection and shall not preclude the 
     Government from objecting to the standing of the claimant by 
     dispositive motion or at the time of trial.''.
       (b) Drug Forfeitures.--Section 511(i) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(i)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) The provisions of section 981(g) of title 18, United 
     States Code, regarding the stay of a civil forfeiture 
     proceeding shall apply to forfeitures under this section.''.

      SEC. 9. CIVIL RESTRAINING ORDERS.

       Section 983 of title 18, United States Code, as added by 
     this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Restraining Orders; Protective Orders.--
       ``(1) Upon application of the United States, the court may 
     enter a restraining order or injunction, require the 
     execution of satisfactory performance bonds, create 
     receiverships, appoint conservators, custodians, appraisers, 
     accountants, or trustees, or take any other action to seize, 
     secure, maintain, or preserve the availability of property 
     subject to civil forfeiture--
       ``(A) upon the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint 
     alleging that the property with respect to which the order is 
     sought is subject to civil forfeiture; or
       ``(B) prior to the filing of such a complaint, if, after 
     notice to persons appearing to have an interest in the 
     property and opportunity for a hearing, the court determines 
     that--
       ``(i) there is a substantial probability that the United 
     States will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and that 
     failure to enter the order will result in the property being 
     destroyed, removed from the jurisdiction of the court, or 
     otherwise made unavailable for forfeiture; and
       ``(ii) the need to preserve the availability of the 
     property through the entry of the requested order outweighs 
     the hardship on any party against whom the order is to be 
     entered.
       ``(2) An order entered pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) shall 
     be effective for not more than 90 days, unless extended by 
     the court for good cause shown, or unless a complaint 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) has been filed.
       ``(3) A temporary restraining order under this subsection 
     may be entered upon application of the United States without 
     notice or opportunity for a hearing when a complaint has not 
     yet been filed with respect to the property, if the United 
     States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe 
     that the property with respect to which the order is sought 
     is subject to civil forfeiture and that provision of notice 
     will jeopardize the availability of the property for 
     forfeiture. Such a temporary order shall expire not more than 
     10 days after the date on which it is entered, unless 
     extended for good cause shown or unless the party against 
     whom it is entered consents to an extension for a longer 
     period. A hearing requested concerning an order entered under 
     this paragraph shall be held at the earliest possible time 
     and prior to the expiration of the temporary order.
       ``(4) The court may receive and consider, at a hearing held 
     pursuant to this subsection, evidence and information that 
     would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.''.

      SEC. 10. COOPERATION AMONG FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.

       Section 3322(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``civil forfeiture under section 981 of 
     title 18, United States Code, of property described in 
     section 981(a)(1)(C) of such title'' and inserting ``any 
     civil forfeiture provision of Federal law''; and
       (2) by striking ``concerning a banking law violation''.

      SEC. 11. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CIVIL FORFEITURE 
                   ACTIONS.

       Section 621 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1621) is 
     amended by inserting ``, or in the case of forfeiture, within 
     2 years after the time when the involvement of the property 
     in the alleged offense was discovered, whichever was later'' 
     after ``within five years after the time when the alleged 
     offense was discovered''.

      SEC. 12. DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF PROPERTY TO PREVENT 
                   SEIZURE.

       Section 2232 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b);
       (2) by inserting ``(e) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance.--
     '' before ``Whoever, having knowledge that a Federal 
     officer'';
       (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (4) by inserting before subsection (d), as redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent 
     Seizure.--Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or 
     seizure of property by any person authorized to make such 
     search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, 
     disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or 
     knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, 
     transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of 
     preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to 
     take such property into its custody or control or to continue 
     holding such property under its lawful custody and control, 
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction.--Whoever, knowing 
     that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a 
     United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under 
     Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, 
     destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or 
     otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, 
     damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any 
     action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court's 
     continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
     or both.
       ``(c) Notice of Search or Execution of Seizure Warrant or 
     Warrant of Arrest In Rem.--Whoever, having knowledge that any 
     person authorized to make searches and seizures, or to 
     execute a seizure warrant or warrant of arrest in rem, in 
     order to prevent the authorized seizing or securing of any 
     person or property, gives notice or attempts to give notice 
     in advance of the search, seizure, or execution of a seizure 
     warrant or warrant of arrest in rem, to any person shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
     or both.''.

     SEC. 13. FUNGIBLE PROPERTY IN BANK ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 984 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and redesignating 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d) as subsections (a), (b), and 
     (c), respectively;
       (2) in subsection (a), as redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``or other fungible property'' and 
     inserting ``or precious metals''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (c)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)'';
       (3) in subsection (c), as redesignated--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 
     ``(1) Subsection (a) does not apply to an action against 
     funds held by a financial institution in an interbank account 
     unless the account holder knowingly engaged in the offense 
     that is the basis for the forfeiture.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) As used in this 
     section, the term'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `financial institution' includes a foreign 
     bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of the International 
     Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101(b)(7))); and
       ``(B) the term''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the 
     ability of the Government to forfeit property under any 
     provision of law if the property involved in the offense 
     giving rise to the forfeiture or property traceable thereto 
     is available for forfeiture.''.

     SEC. 14. FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 163 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2466. Fugitive disentitlement

       ``A judicial officer may disallow a person from using the 
     resources of the courts of the United States in furtherance 
     of a claim in any related

[[Page S1758]]

     civil forfeiture action or a claim in third party proceedings 
     in any related criminal forfeiture action upon a finding that 
     such person--
       ``(1) after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant 
     or process has been issued for his apprehension, in order to 
     avoid criminal prosecution--
       ``(A) purposely leaves the jurisdiction of the United 
     States;
       ``(B) declines to enter or reenter the United States to 
     submit to its jurisdiction; or
       ``(C) otherwise evades the jurisdiction of the court in 
     which a criminal case is pending against the person; and
       ``(2) is not confined or held in custody in any other 
     jurisdiction for commission of criminal conduct in that 
     jurisdiction.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 163 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``2466. Fugitive disentitlement.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any case pending on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 15. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN FORFEITURE JUDGMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 163 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2467. Enforcement of foreign judgment

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `foreign nation' means a country that has 
     become a party to the United Nations Convention Against 
     Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
     (referred to in this section as the `United Nations 
     Convention') or a foreign jurisdiction with which the United 
     States has a treaty or other formal international agreement 
     in effect providing for mutual forfeiture assistance; and
       ``(2) the term `forfeiture or confiscation judgment' means 
     a final order of a foreign nation compelling a person or 
     entity--
       ``(A) to pay a sum of money representing the proceeds of an 
     offense described in Article 3, Paragraph 1, of the United 
     Nations Convention, or any foreign offense described in 
     section 1956(c)(7)(B) of title 18, or property the value of 
     which corresponds to such proceeds; or
       ``(B) to forfeit property involved in or traceable to the 
     commission of such offense.
       ``(b) Review by Attorney General.--
       ``(1) In general.--A foreign nation seeking to have a 
     forfeiture or confiscation judgment registered and enforced 
     by a district court of the United States under this section 
     shall first submit a request to the Attorney General or the 
     designee of the Attorney General, which request shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a summary of the facts of the case and a description 
     of the proceedings that resulted in the forfeiture or 
     confiscation judgment;
       ``(B) certified copy of the forfeiture or confiscation 
     judgment;
       ``(C) an affidavit or sworn declaration establishing that 
     the defendant received notice of the proceedings in 
     sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend against the 
     charges and that the judgment rendered is in force and is not 
     subject to appeal; and
       ``(D) such additional information and evidence as may be 
     required by the Attorney General or the designee of the 
     Attorney General.
       ``(2) Certification of request.--The Attorney General or 
     the designee of the Attorney General shall determine whether, 
     in the interest of justice, to certify the request, and such 
     decision shall be final and not subject to either judicial 
     review or review under subchapter II of chapter 5, or chapter 
     7, of title 5 (commonly known as the `Administrative 
     Procedure Act').
       ``(c) Jurisdiction and Venue.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Attorney General or the designee 
     of the Attorney General certifies a request under subsection 
     (b), the United States may file an application on behalf of a 
     foreign nation in district court of the United States seeking 
     to enforce the foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgment as 
     if the judgment had been entered by a court in the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Proceedings.--In a proceeding filed under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) the United States shall be the applicant and the 
     defendant or another person or entity affected by the 
     forfeiture or confiscation judgment shall be the respondent;
       ``(B) venue shall lie in the district court for the 
     District of Columbia or in any other district in which the 
     defendant or the property that may be the basis for 
     satisfaction of a judgment under this section may be found; 
     and
       ``(C) the district court shall have personal jurisdiction 
     over a defendant residing outside of the United States if the 
     defendant is served with process in accordance with rule 4 of 
     the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(d) Entry and Enforcement of Judgment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The district court shall enter such 
     orders as may be necessary to enforce the judgment on behalf 
     of the foreign nation unless the court finds that--
       ``(A) the judgment was rendered under a system that 
     provides tribunals or procedures incompatible with the 
     requirements of due process of law;
       ``(B) the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over 
     the defendant;
       ``(C) the foreign court lacked jurisdiction over the 
     subject matter;
       ``(D) the defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court 
     did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time 
     to enable him or her to defend; or
       ``(E) the judgment was obtained by fraud.
       ``(2) Process.--Process to enforce a judgment under this 
     section shall be in accordance with rule 69(a) of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(e) Finality of Foreign Findings.--In entering orders to 
     enforce the judgment, the court shall be bound by the 
     findings of fact to the extent that they are stated in the 
     foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgment.
       ``(f) Currency Conversion.--The rate of exchange in effect 
     at the time the suit to enforce is filed by the foreign 
     nation shall be used in calculating the amount stated in any 
     forfeiture or confiscation judgment requiring the payment of 
     a sum of money submitted for registration.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 163 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``2467. Enforcement of foreign judgment.''.

     SEC. 16. ENCOURAGING USE OF CRIMINAL FORFEITURE AS AN 
                   ALTERNATIVE TO CIVIL FORFEITURE.

       Section 2461 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) If a forfeiture of property is authorized in 
     connection with a violation of an Act of Congress, and any 
     person is charged in an indictment or information with such 
     violation but no specific statutory provision is made for 
     criminal forfeiture upon conviction, the Government may 
     include the forfeiture in the indictment or information in 
     accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 
     upon conviction, the court shall order the forfeiture of the 
     property in accordance with the procedures set forth in 
     section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), 
     other than subsection (d) of that section.''.

      SEC. 17. ACCESS TO RECORDS IN BANK SECRECY JURISDICTIONS.

       Section 986 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Access to Records in Bank Secrecy Jurisdictions.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any civil forfeiture case, or in any 
     ancillary proceeding in any criminal forfeiture case governed 
     by section 413(n) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     853(n)), in which--
       ``(A) financial records located in a foreign country may be 
     material--
       ``(i) to any claim or to the ability of the Government to 
     respond to such claim; or
       ``(ii) in a civil forfeiture case, to the ability of the 
     Government to establish the forfeitability of the property; 
     and
       ``(B) it is within the capacity of the claimant to waive 
     the claimant's rights under applicable financial secrecy 
     laws, or to obtain the records so that such records can be 
     made available notwithstanding such secrecy laws;

     the refusal of the claimant to provide the records in 
     response to a discovery request or to take the action 
     necessary otherwise to make the records available shall be 
     grounds for judicial sanctions, up to and including dismissal 
     of the claim with prejudice.
       ``(2) Privilege.--This subsection shall not affect the 
     right of the claimant to refuse production on the basis of 
     any privilege guaranteed by the Constitution of the United 
     States or any other provision of Federal law.''.

     SEC. 18. APPLICATION TO ALIEN SMUGGLING OFFENSES.

       (a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
     Section 274(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Seizure and Forfeiture.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any conveyance, including any vessel, 
     vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the 
     commission of a violation of subsection (a), the gross 
     proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to 
     such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to 
     forfeiture.
       ``(2) Applicable procedures.--Seizures and forfeitures 
     under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of 
     chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, relating to civil 
     forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except 
     that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the 
     Treasury under the customs laws described in that section 
     shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other 
     persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney 
     General.
       ``(3) Prima facie evidence in determinations of 
     violations.--In determining whether a violation of subsection 
     (a) has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie 
     evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had 
     not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, 
     or reside in the United States or that such alien had come 
     to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of 
     law:
       ``(A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding 
     in which that alien's status was an issue and in which it was 
     determined that the alien had not received prior official 
     authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United 
     States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained 
     in the United States in violation of law.
       ``(B) Official records of the Service or of the Department 
     of State showing that the alien had not received prior 
     official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the 
     United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or 
     remained in the United States in violation of law.
       ``(C) Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal 
     knowledge of the facts concerning that alien's status, that 
     the alien had not received prior official authorization to 
     come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such 
     alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States 
     in violation of law.''.
       (b) Technical Corrections to Existing Criminal Forfeiture 
     Authority.--Section 982(a)(6) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by inserting ``section 274(a), 274A(a)(1), or 
     274A(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or'' before 
     ``section 1425'' the first place it appears;

[[Page S1759]]

       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation of, or a 
     conspiracy to violate, subsection (a)'' and inserting ``the 
     offense of which the person is convicted''; and
       (C) in subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (ii), by striking 
     ``a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, subsection 
     (a)'' and all that follows through ``of this title'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``the offense of which the 
     person is convicted'';
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (3) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``The court, in imposing sentence on such 
     person'' and inserting the following:
       ``(B) The court, in imposing sentence on a person described 
     in subparagraph (A)''; and
       (B) by striking ``this subparagraph'' and inserting ``that 
     subparagraph''.

      SEC. 19. ENHANCED VISIBILITY OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 524(c)(6) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(6)(A) The Attorney General shall transmit to Congress 
     and make available to the public, not later than 4 months 
     after the end of each fiscal year, detailed reports for the 
     prior fiscal year as follows:
       ``(i) A report on total deposits to the Fund by State of 
     deposit.
       ``(ii) A report on total expenses paid from the Fund, by 
     category of expense and recipient agency, including equitable 
     sharing payments.
       ``(iii) A report describing the number, value, and types of 
     properties placed into official use by Federal agencies, by 
     recipient agency.
       ``(iv) A report describing the number, value, and types of 
     properties transferred to State and local law enforcement 
     agencies, by recipient agency.
       ``(v) A report, by type of disposition, describing the 
     number, value, and types of forfeited property disposed of 
     during the year.
       ``(vi) A report on the year-end inventory of property under 
     seizure, but not yet forfeited, that reflects the type of 
     property, its estimated value, and the estimated value of 
     liens and mortgages outstanding on the property.
       ``(vii) A report listing each property in the year-end 
     inventory, not yet forfeited, with an outstanding equity of 
     not less than $1,000,000.
       ``(B) The Attorney General shall transmit to Congress and 
     make available to the public, not later than 2 months after 
     final issuance, the audited financial statements for each 
     fiscal year for the Fund.
       ``(C) Reports under subparagraph (A) shall include 
     information with respect to all forfeitures under any law 
     enforced or administered by the Department of Justice.
       ``(D) The transmittal and publication requirements in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) may be satisfied by--
       ``(i) posting the reports on an Internet website maintained 
     by the Department of Justice for a period of not less than 2 
     years; and
       ``(ii) notifying the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate when the reports are 
     available electronically.''.

      SEC. 20. PROCEEDS.

       (a) Forfeiture of Proceeds.--Section 981(a)(1)(C) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or a 
     violation of section 1341'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``or any offense constituting `specified unlawful 
     activity' (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title), 
     or a conspiracy to commit such offense.''.
       (b) Definition of Proceeds.--Section 981(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `proceeds' is 
     defined as follows:
       ``(A) In cases involving illegal goods, illegal services, 
     unlawful activities, and telemarketing and health care fraud 
     schemes, the term `proceeds' means property of any kind 
     obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of the 
     commission of the offense giving rise to forfeiture, and any 
     property traceable thereto, and is not limited to the net 
     gain or profit realized from the offense.
       ``(B) In cases involving lawful goods or lawful services 
     that are sold or provided in an illegal manner, the term 
     `proceeds' means the amount of money acquired through the 
     illegal transactions resulting in the forfeiture, less the 
     direct costs incurred in providing the goods or services. The 
     claimant shall have the burden of proof with respect to the 
     issue of direct costs. The direct costs shall not include any 
     part of the overhead expenses of the entity providing the 
     goods or services, or any part of the income taxes paid by 
     the entity.
       ``(C) In cases involving fraud in the process of obtaining 
     a loan or extension of credit, the court shall allow the 
     claimant a deduction from the forfeiture to the extent that 
     the loan was repaid, or the debt was satisfied, without any 
     financial loss to the victim.''.

     SEC. 21. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided in section 14(c), this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall apply to any forfeiture 
     proceeding commenced on or after the date that is 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that Chairman 
Hyde, Senator Leahy and I reached an agreement with the Department of 
Justice and Senators Sessions and Schumer yesterday on civil forfeiture 
reform legislation. This is an important issue, and I am proud to 
support this legislation. While civil forfeiture is a valuable law 
enforcement tool, it has become increasingly clear that some reform of 
civil forfeiture law is necessary given the numerous controversial 
seizures of property in the last decade.
  Federal civil forfeiture procedures, which are based largely on 19th 
century admiralty law, provide inadequate protections for private 
property. For example, under current Federal law, once the government 
seizes property, the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove 
that the property is not subject to forfeiture. After property is 
seized, the property owner must post a cost bond in order to contest 
the forfeiture. This bond requirement does not entitle the property 
owner to the return of the property, but merely allows the claimant to 
contest the forfeiture. If the property owner files a claim to the 
property, the government has up to five years to file a complaint for 
forfeiture.
  The legislation agreed to today increases protections for property 
owners, while respecting the interests of law enforcement. Among other 
provisions, the bill places the burden of proof in civil forfeiture 
cases on the government throughout the proceeding; places reasonable 
time limits on the government in civil forfeiture actions; awards 
attorney fees and costs to property owners who prevail against the 
government in civil forfeiture cases; authorizes the court to release 
property pending trial in appropriate circumstances; eliminates the 
cost bond; and provides a uniform innocent owner defense to all federal 
civil forfeitures affected by the bill.
  All of us here are committed to depriving criminals of the proceeds 
of crime. To further this goal, the bill increases the ability of the 
Justice Department to target criminal proceeds. The bill also extends 
criminal forfeiture authority to any Federal statute in which civil 
forfeiture authority exists in order to encourage the use of criminal 
forfeiture. In addition, the bill contains several mechanisms to deter 
and punish frivolous claims to seized property. Senator Sessions will 
describe these provisions in detail.
  A broad coalition of organizations support this bill, including the 
Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, the National 
Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Relators, the 
Institute for Justice, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Rifle 
Association, the American Bar Association, and the Fraternal Order of 
Police. In addition, six former Attorneys General--William Barr, 
Richard Thornburg, Edwin Meese, Benjamin Civiletti, Griffin Bell, and 
Nicholas Katzenbach--have endorsed the bill.
  In closing, I would like to thank Senators Sessions and Schumer for 
their patience and cooperation. This agreement would not be possible 
without their hard work and dedication. Senator Sessions is to be 
especially commended. As a former United States Attorney and state 
Attorney General, he has more experience in civil forfeiture actions 
that any member of Congress. Senator Sessions has been an outstanding 
representative of the law enforcement community, and I am proud to have 
his support.
  Finally, I would like to thank House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde. 
No one has done more to advance the cause of civil forfeiture reform 
than Chairman Hyde. His 1995 book on civil forfeiture helped draw 
national attention to the need for reform. Last June, the House 
overwhelmingly passed the Hyde-Conyers civil forfeiture reform bill. 
This victory for forfeiture reform was due in large measure to Henry 
Hyde's stature and commitment.
  Thank you for your attention to this important reform legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at long last, after years of effort and 
several weeks of intensive, tedious and seemingly endless negotiations, 
we have reached agreement on civil asset forfeiture reform legislation. 
This is a significant improvement over the current system and should go 
a long way toward stemming the abuses that have so offended Americans 
across the country and the political spectrum. It is not often that we 
see the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ACLU, NRA, National Association of 
Criminal Defense Lawyers, American Bankers Association, the Institute 
of Justice, Americans for Tax Reform, and the American Bar Association 
joining together on the same side of a legislative effort. Working with 
Chairman Hatch, Chairman Hyde, Mr. Conyers, Senator Sessions and 
Senator Schumer, we have crafted a good

[[Page S1760]]

bill, a balanced bill and a reform package that should move forward as 
consensus legislation and be enacted without further delay this year. I 
want to thank all who have worked with us in this process. In 
particular, I want to thank Janet Reno, our Attorney General, for 
working with us, meeting with us and lending her support to this effort 
and joining our coalition by agreeing to the consensus civil asset 
forfeiture reform legislation that the Senate is passing today.
  Asset forfeiture is a powerful crime-fighting tool. It has been a 
particularly potent weapon in the war on drugs, allowing the government 
to take the cars and boats and stash houses amassed by drug dealers and 
put them to honest use. Last year alone, the government was able to 
seize nearly half a billion dollars worth of assets, cutting a big 
chunk out of criminals' profit stream and returning it to the law-
abiding community.
  Unfortunately, our nation's asset forfeiture is not fail-safe; it can 
be and has been abused. In hearings on this issue, the Judiciary 
Committee has heard examples of what happens when prosecutorial zeal 
skirts the boundaries of due process, leading to the taking of private 
property regardless of whether the owner is innocent of, or even 
cognizant of, the property's use in an illegal act, or whether the 
seizure is entirely out of proportion to the criminal conduct alleged.
  I am well aware from incidents in Vermont about how aggressive use by 
Federal and State law enforcement official of civil asset forfeiture 
laws can appear unfair and excessive, and thereby fuel public distrust 
of the government in general and law enforcement in particular. For 
example, in 1989, federal prosecutors seized a Vermont homestead that a 
family had built and lived in for over a decade. The husband had 
pleaded guilty in State court to growing six marijuana plants, without 
his wife's knowledge, and was sentenced to 50 hours of community 
service, which he fulfilled by building bookshelves for the local 
public library.
  Yet, one year after his arrest, Vermont State police brought his 
arrest to the attention of the federal authorities and Federal marshals 
seized the family's home and 49 surrounding acres. Hundreds of 
Vermonters rallied to the family's defense, including former 
prosecutors, until the case was settled with no seizure of the 
property.
  In another civil asset forfeiture case, federal prosecutors again 
seized the home and 10 acres of a Vermont woman in Richmond, Vermont, 
after two hidden patches of marijuana plants were discovered on her 
property. Criminal charges against the woman were dismissed when she 
established she was unaware that her daughter and daughter's boyfriend 
were cultivating the plants. Three years after the seizure, in 1990, a 
federal judge ordered the government to return the property to the 
woman, but by that time it had been destroyed by fire.

  By contrast to the obligation under Vermont law that law enforcement 
agencies must ``ensure that the property is properly maintained,'' 18 
V.S.A. Sec.  4246, the federal authorities who made the seizure of this 
property had no such obligation and did not take good care of the 
property.
  In yet another civil asset forfeiture case, federal prosecutors in 
1990, seized the home and 10.7 acres of a family in Craftsbury Common, 
Vermont, after the homeowners were convicted in State court of 
cultivating marijuana and given suspended sentences three years earlier 
in 1987.
  Given the fact that in each of these cases, the underlying criminal 
charges were prosecuted by the State but the forfeiture action was 
taken federally, one might ask why these related proceedings were 
divided between the State and Federal authorities? The answer is 
simple: Vermont law does not allow the forfeiture of real property 
``which is occupied as the primary residence of a person involved in 
the violation and a member or members of that person's family.'' 18 
V.S.A. Sec.  4241(a)(5).
  Moreover, under Vermont law, state law enforcement authorities carry 
a heavier burden ``of proving all material facts by clear and 
convincing evidence.'' 18 V.S.A. Sec.  4244(c). By contrast, federal 
forfeiture procedures provide more latitude on the property subject to 
seizure and more lenient requirements for federal law enforcement 
authorities to meet.
  While federal authorities in Vermont have in recent years avoided 
such egregious asset forfeiture abuses, that is not the situation in 
other jurisdictions, prompting increasing and exceedingly sharp 
criticism from scholars and commentators of the federal asset 
forfeiture system, which in general requires far less from the 
government than any State forfeiture law.
  Federal judges have also added their voices to the growing chorus of 
concern. In 1992, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated: ``We 
continue to be enormously troubled by the government's increasing and 
virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the 
disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes.'' Four 
years later, the Eighth Circuit rebuked the government for capitalizing 
on the claimants' confusion to forfeit over $70,000 of their currency, 
and expressed alarm that:

       [T]he war on drugs has brought us to the point where the 
     government may seize . . . a citizen's property without any 
     initial showing of cause, and put the onus on the citizen to 
     perfectly navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth in order to 
     liberate what is presumptively his or hers in the first 
     place. . . . Should the citizen prove inept, the government 
     may keep the property, without ever having to justify or 
     explain its actions.

  Similarly, the Seventh Circuit recently expressed its belief that 
``the government's conduct in forfeiture cases leaves much to be 
desired,'' and ordered the return of over $500,000 in currency that had 
been improperly seized from a Chicago pizzeria.
  Under current law, the property owner--not the government--bears the 
burden of proof. All the government must do is make an initial showing 
of probable cause that the property is ``guilty'' and subject to 
forfeiture. The property owner must then prove a negative--that the 
property was not involved in any wrongdoing. It is time to bring this 
law in line with our modern principles of due process and fair play, 
and reform forfeiture procedures to ensure that innocent property 
owners are adequately protected.

  The Hyde-Conyers civil asset forfeiture reform bill, H.R. 1658, 
passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan majority (375-48) last 
June. After lengthy negotiations with the Department of Justice, 
Chairman Hatch and I introduced a Senate civil asset forfeiture reform 
bill, S.1931. Our bill addressed every major concern that the 
Department had raised in our hearings and in the Statement of 
Administration Policy regarding the Hyde-Conyers bill, and struck a 
fair compromise on those issues.
  For example, the Hyde-Conyers bill put the burden of proof on the 
Government by clear and convincing evidence. We put the burden of proof 
on the Government by a preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance 
standard is used in virtually all other civil cases, and we believe it 
is sufficient to protect the interests of property owners.
  The Hyde-Conyers bill authorized courts to appoint counsel for any 
indigent person who asserted an interest in seized property. Although I 
am sympathetic to that proposal--justice should not be only for the 
wealthy--the Administration strongly opposed it. We provided for 
appointment of counsel only in the rare case where the property subject 
to forfeiture was the claimant's primary residence. In other cases, a 
claimant could recoup attorney fees only if she substantially prevailed 
in challenging the forfeiture.
  We are grateful for the support of so many members of the Committee 
and others over the last year. The Hatch-Leahy bill was endorsed by the 
last six Attorneys General of the United States from both parties, 
William Barr, Richard Thornburgh, Edwin Meese, Benjamin Civiletti, 
Griffin Bell, and Nicholas Katzenbach, and a wide range of 
organizations.
  Although I knew that we had met the Department more than half way in 
our bill, we did not stop there. We have met with and worked with 
Senators Sessions and Schumer, who had introduced a different type of 
bill, to see whether we might find common ground. After weeks of 
intensive efforts, we succeeded in coming together. For our part, 
Chairman Hatch and I accepted more than 30 substantive changes to the 
provisions in the Hatch-Leahy bill, plus about a dozen new sections to 
the bill that give law enforcement new, but measured, authority. In

[[Page S1761]]

essence we combined the Hatch-Leahy Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 
S. 1931, with suggestions from the Sessions-Schumer bill to form a 
civil asset forfeiture legislative package that we can all agree to 
support.
  Among the important reforms made by the Hatch-Leahy-Sessions-Schumer 
substitute amendment to H.R. 1658, which the Senate passes today, are 
the following:
  Burden of proof. The substitute amendment puts the burden of proof on 
the government by a preponderance of the evidence.
  Cost bond. Another core reform of the substitute amendment is the 
elimination of the so-called ``cost bond.'' Under current law, a 
property owner who seeks to recover his property after it has been 
seized by the government must pay for the privilege by posting a bond 
with the court. No other federal statute requires a cost bond, and no 
State requires a cost bond in civil forfeiture cases.
  The government has defended the cost bond, not as a device for 
ensuring that its court costs are covered, but as a way of deterring 
frivolous claims. Of course, we are all in favor of deterring frivolous 
claims, but there are ways to deter frivolous claims without offending 
the fundamental principle of equal and open access to the courts, a 
bedrock of our American system of justice.
  The substitute amendment provides that a person who challenges a 
forfeiture must file his claim on oath, under penalty of perjury. It 
also provides for imposition of a civil fine, in cases where the 
claimant's assertion of an interest in the property was frivolous. In 
addition, claimants will continue to bear the substantial costs of 
litigating their claims in court, and they and their attorneys will 
remain subject to the general sanctions for bad faith in instituting or 
conducting litigation. Frivolous prisoner claimants will be barred from 
repeated filings on proper court findings. The added burden of the 
``cost bond'' serves no legitimate purpose.
  Legal assistance and attorney fees. The substitute amendment permits 
courts to authorize counsel to represent an indigent claimant only if 
the claimant is already represented by a court-appointed attorney in 
connection with a related federal criminal case. This is both fair and 
efficient, and eliminates any appearance that the government chose to 
pursue the forfeiture in a civil proceeding rather than as part of the 
criminal case in order to deprive the claimant of his right to counsel.
  Beyond this, the substitute amendment ensures that when the 
government seeks to forfeit an indigent person's primary residence, 
that person will be afforded representation by the Legal Services 
Corporation. When a forfeiture action can result in a claimant's 
eviction and homelessness, there is more at stake than just a property 
interest, and it is fair and just that the claimant be provided with an 
attorney if he cannot otherwise afford one. The Legal Services 
Corporation will be paid by the government for providing representation 
in these cases.
  For claimants who are not provided with counsel, the substitute 
allows for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs if they 
substantially prevail on their claim. The bill also makes the 
government liable for post-judgment interest on any money judgment, and 
imputed interest in certain cases involving currency or negotiable 
instruments.
  Filing deadlines. Under current law, a property owner has only 20 
days from the date of first publication of the notice of seizure to 
file a claim challenging an administrative forfeiture, and only 10 days 
to file a claim challenging a judicial forfeiture. It is therefore 
unlikely that anyone who misses the first of three published notices 
will be able to file a timely claim. The substitute extends the 
property owner's time to file a claim following the commencement of an 
administrative or judicial forfeiture action to 30 days. The bill also 
codifies current Department of Justice policy with respect to the time 
period for sending notice of seizure, and establishes a 90-day period 
for filing a complaint.

  Release of property for hardship. The substitute will allow a 
property owner to hold on to his property pending the final disposition 
of the case, if he can show that continued possession by the government 
will cause the owner substantial hardship, such as preventing him from 
working, and that this hardship outweighs the risk that the property 
will be destroyed or concealed if returned to the owner during the 
pendency of the case. Unlike H.R. 1658, the substitute adopts the 
primary safeguards that the Justice Department wanted added to the 
provision--that property owners must have sufficient ties to the 
community to provide assurance that the property will not disappear, 
and that certain property, such as currency and property particularly 
outfitted for use in illegal activities, shall not be returned. 
Government cannot obtain a grand jury subpoena to obtain such 
documents.
  Criminal proceeds. The substitute also brings clarity and fairness to 
the confused body of case law concerning the definition of criminal 
proceeds. Specifically, in cases involving lawful goods or lawful 
services that are sold or provided in an illegal manner, the term 
``proceeds'' is defined to mean the amount of money acquired through 
the illegal transactions resulting in the forfeiture, less the direct 
costs incurred in providing the goods or services. An exception is made 
for cases involving certain health care fraud schemes, since it would 
make no sense to allow those who provide unnecessary services to deduct 
the cost of those unnecessary services. Having resolved this important 
matter, the substitute amendment broadly extends the government's 
authority to forfeit criminal proceeds under the civil asset forfeiture 
laws.
  Fugitive disentitlement. The Supreme Court in 1996 disallowed the 
judge-made doctrine that a fugitive avoiding the jurisdiction of the 
U.S. courts in a criminal case may not contest a civil forfeiture; 
however, the Court left open the possibility that Congress could 
establish such doctrine by statute. The Court was responding, in part, 
to the government's record of seeking forfeiture of property even 
though the property is not subject to forfeiture (e.g., because the 
statute of limitations has expired), when the government believes that 
the fugitive owner will not be permitted to contest the forfeiture. 
Opponents of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine say that the 
prosecutors have gone so far as to indict people whom they know will 
never return to this country, so that they can invoke the doctrine in 
civil forfeiture proceedings against such persons' U.S. assets. The 
substitute provides a statutory basis for a judge to disallow a civil 
asset forfeiture claim by a fugitive, while leaving judges discretion 
to allow such a claim in the interests of justice.
  Senator Hatch and I share a longstanding and deeply-held appreciation 
for law enforcement and the officers who work on the front lines to 
protect our families and communities, and we have worked together on a 
number of crime-related issues in the past. Recently, for example, we 
have led the Senate in passing a number of legislative initiatives of 
importance to State and local law enforcement, including the 
Bulletproof Vests Partnership Act of 1998, Crime Identification 
Technology Act of 1998, Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998, the 
Railroad Police Officers Training Act of 1999, and the Methamphetamine 
Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999. I want to commend him for his 
commitment, not just to law enforcement, but to the rights of all 
Americans. It has been my pleasure to work with him on this issue, to 
bring balance back in the relationship between our police forces and 
the citizens of this country.
  It has been a privilege to work with Representatives Hyde and Conyers 
on this important legislation. And we greatly appreciate the 
contributions made by Senators Sessions and Schumer, both knowledgeable 
and experienced legislators in this area.
  I would also like to thank the Senate and House staff who worked so 
hard to bring this matter to closure: On my staff, Julie Katzman and 
Beryl Howell; in addition, George Fishman, who has been dedicated to 
this project for so many years, Manus Cooney, Rhett DeHart, Ed Haden, 
Ben Lawsky, Tom Mooney, John Dudas, Julian Epstein, Perry Apelbaum, and 
Cori Flam--their efforts made this day possible. Thanks are also due to 
Bill Jensen and the other hardworking members of the Senate's Office of 
Legislative Counsel.

[[Page S1762]]

  Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to David Smith, a 
leading expert on civil asset forfeiture, who gave tirelessly of his 
time over the past few months. His expertise and good counsel were 
invaluable in producing the legislation that the Senate passes today.
  It is time for Congress to catch up with the American people and the 
courts and do the right thing on this important issue of fairness. I am 
glad that the Senate is acting without delay to pass this long overdue 
reform legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and 
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any 
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee substitute was agreed to.
  The bill (H.R. 1658), as amended, was read a third time and passed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the bill we have just considered is a 
very important piece of legislation that has been the subject of 
considerable effort for over a year now in the Judiciary Committee in 
the House.
  Great efforts have been expended by all parties interested in this 
legislation to achieve a piece of legislation that would provide 
enhanced protections to private property owners and at the same time 
would not undermine, in a real and significant and unnecessary way, the 
ability of law enforcement agencies to seize and forfeit to the 
interest of the Government assets from illegal drug dealers and other 
criminal assets that are forfeited.
  In the early 1980s, this Congress passed one of its most historic 
pieces of legislation that attacked crime in America. It was the asset 
forfeiture law. At that time, I was a U.S. attorney in Mobile, AL. This 
Federal law became a daily part of the work of my office.
  We instructed our assistant U.S. attorneys that whenever they were 
prosecuting a drug case, it was not just enough to sentence and punish 
the criminal, they ought to be sure the ill-gotten gains, the profits 
they made from selling illegal substances in this country, would be 
seized and forfeited to the United States.
  On a regular basis that was done all over this country. It was a 
major, important, historic step against crime, particularly against 
drug crime in America. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of 
dollars, have been forfeited from illegal enterprises since that day. 
The forfeitures are conducted under this Federal law, although States 
have the ability to forfeit assets, too.
  In Federal court, the Government had to prove its case, seize the 
asset; a cost bond would be posted by the defendant if he wished to 
contest the seizure, and a court would hear the case and make a ruling 
in that fashion.
  A number of people believed strongly that requiring a person to post 
a cost bond was not a healthy thing under our legal system. They wanted 
to change that. Chairman Henry Hyde in the House Judiciary Committee 
felt that way; so did Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. We began to analyze and study what we could do to 
deal with this problem of asset forfeiture.
  At the time, Senators Schumer, Thurmond, Biden, and myself introduced 
asset forfeiture reform legislation in the Senate. Senators Hatch and 
Leahy introduced another piece of legislation that was closer to the 
Hyde bill.
  For some months now, we have worked together to see what we could do 
to protect legitimate constitutional rights of American citizens, while 
at the same time protecting this tremendous asset to law enforcement of 
the seizing and forfeiting of assets.
  It is wrong, in my opinion, for a person who has made his money and 
his livelihood for years selling dope in America to go to jail and 
leave a mansion out there that he can come back to and the Federal 
taxpayers having to pay for his time in jail, or to have bank accounts 
with hundreds of thousands of dollars in them and not have that seized 
by the Government but, in fact, serving his time in jail and getting 
out and living high off the ill-gotten gains he achieved as a drug 
trafficker.
  I would say, 98 percent of forfeitures in America today in Federal 
court are as a result of drug cases.
  In my relatively small office in Alabama, when I was a U.S. attorney, 
we seized probably $8 million to $10 million that we actually turned 
into the Federal Treasury, after expenses and other items were paid.
  In one case, we seized a Corvette automobile that was rumored to be 
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars because it was a unique 
Corvette. In fact, the drug dealer's car eventually was sold for 
$170,000, as I remember. We seized mansions in Florida on the Gulf 
Coast. We seized bank accounts in foreign countries--big freighters, 
small boats, expensive sail boats, automobiles of all kinds, and bank 
accounts into the millions of dollars.
  These are effective tools against the drug trafficking industry. In 
fact, many countries now recognize that, and they are at this time 
attempting to pass similar laws in their countries. It certainly is 
important to America.

  I believed very strongly that when we set about amending this law, we 
do not need to place any unnecessary burdens on law enforcement and the 
prosecutors who will have to handle these cases. In fact, a large 
percentage, perhaps 90 percent or more, of these cases are confessed by 
the defendant because he has to establish where he got this money. Not 
many people can explain why they have $50,000 in cash in the trunk of 
their car along with maybe a few kilograms of cocaine. Normally, there 
is evidence in addition that they have been a drug dealer and that they 
haven't had employment; that their house note is being paid in cash. 
Oftentimes they paid for their Mercedes automobile in cash, those kinds 
of things. So the proof turns out to be pretty good, as a normal rule.
  I believe the negotiation over this legislation was a fine example of 
the Senate at work; the Senate and House, as a matter of fact. We 
believe the agreement that has been reached today will both satisfy the 
House Judiciary Committee leadership and the Senate Judiciary Committee 
leadership. Now it has already passed the Senate. If the identical bill 
passes in the House, it will become law. We will have done what we set 
out to do, to pass legislation that will strengthen protections and 
civil liberties in America without undermining the rule of law in this 
country.
  I was proud to be a part of that. We worked very hard on it. I 
express particular appreciation to my staff on the Judiciary Committee: 
Kristi Lee, who is now U.S. Magistrate in Mobile, AL, and Ed Haden, who 
is with me today, who both worked with extraordinary skill to make this 
legislation become a reality.
  In recent weeks, I am particularly proud of the work Ed Haden has 
done to be firm and strong for good, solid legislation that could have 
the support of law enforcement in America.
  I also express my appreciation for the leadership of Senator Hatch 
who chairs the Judiciary Committee. His skill and knowledge on these 
issues is unsurpassed, and his dedication to American law is 
unsurpassed.
  I also was extraordinarily impressed with the commitment and 
knowledge and ability of Chairman Henry Hyde of the House Judiciary 
Committee. His insight and commitment to making this law better was 
remarkable, and I think the result has been something of which we can 
all be proud.

                          ____________________