[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 167 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8539-H8541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESERVING FOREIGN CRIMINAL ASSETS FOR FORFEITURE ACT OF 2010
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(S. 4005) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the
proceeds or instrumentalities of foreign crime located in the United
States from being shielded from foreign forfeiture proceedings.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 4005
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Foreign Criminal
Assets for Forfeiture Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE UNDER
FOREIGN LAW.
Section 2467(d)(3)(A) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) Restraining orders.--
``(i) In general.--To preserve the availability of property
subject to civil or criminal forfeiture under foreign law,
the Government may apply for, and the court may issue, a
restraining order at any time before or after the initiation
of forfeiture proceedings by a foreign nation.
``(ii) Procedures.--
``(I) In general.--A restraining order under this
subparagraph shall be issued in a manner consistent with
subparagraphs (A), (C), and (E) of paragraph (1) and the
procedural due process protections for a restraining order
under section 983(j) of title 18.
``(II) Application.--For purposes of applying such section
983(j)--
``(aa) references in such section 983(j) to civil
forfeiture or the filing of a complaint shall be deemed to
refer to the applicable foreign criminal or forfeiture
proceedings; and
``(bb) the reference in paragraph (1)(B)(i) of such section
983(j) to the United States shall be deemed to refer to the
foreign nation.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHU. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for Forfeiture
Act of 2010 will ensure that U.S. courts can freeze assets while
foreign legal proceedings are pending. This fix permits Federal law
enforcement to assist foreign governments without waiting for a final
judgment in a foreign court.
I want to tell you a story that highlights the importance of this
legislation. Years ago, I met a bright young man named Bobby Salcedo,
who grew up in my district it in El Monte, California. What struck me
right away was Bobby's dedication to improving the lives of children
and residents of his community. It was that dedication that gave him
his incredible energy and passion to achieve as much as he did.
He was an elected member of the El Monte School District. He returned
to his alma mater, Mountain View High School, to become its assistant
principal, and was studying for his doctorate in education at UCLA.
Aside from his caring, selfless nature, Bobby was very intelligent,
driven, and charismatic. It was clear to everyone who knew him that he
was going somewhere. He was our rising star.
A year ago, Bobby traveled to Gomez Palacio in the Mexican state of
Durango to visit his wife's family for the holidays. On New Year's Eve,
he was out with family and friends at a local restaurant when gunmen
burst in and dragged Bobby, along with five other men, out of the
restaurant at gunpoint. They were then each shot to death execution-
style. The next day, all six bodies were found dumped in a ditch. Bobby
was only 33 years old.
After the investigation began, it was confirmed that none of the six
murder victims were connected to the drug trade in any way. Bobby and
the others were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their deaths
exemplify a growing number of innocent bystanders who are
[[Page H8540]]
becoming victimized in the cartel violence in Mexico.
It had seemed as though the situation could not get worse. However,
only weeks after Bobby was so brutally murdered, the lead state
investigator in his case was also shot dead.
For me and thousands of others, Bobby's death is a symbol for both of
our countries that progress for peace in Mexico must be made. We cannot
allow the death of innocent bystanders or American citizens to pass
without consequences. Until there is true accountability for the
violence, there is little incentive for the drug lords to keep the
peace.
In my conversations with law enforcement, I hear the same thing over
and over again. In order to stop this wave of violence on the border
and protect both American and Mexican citizens, we must hit the cartels
where it hurts the most--their bank accounts and property, which are
often located in the United States. So when I heard that Federal courts
had severely limited law enforcement's ability to freeze foreign assets
in the United States at the request of foreign governments, I had to
act.
In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of
2000, which authorized Federal courts to assist foreign nations by
freezing assets located in the United States while individuals stood
trial in foreign courts. This process is consistent with our treaty
obligations and, under those same international agreements, foreign
courts will offer the United States similar assistance with assets
located overseas.
This law is an important tool to fight organized crime, money
laundering, and drug trafficking. It allows the U.S. to assist foreign
governments in cutting the money supply to international criminal
organizations.
Earlier this year, however, Federal courts interpreted the statute to
apply only after a final decision has been reached in a foreign court
proceeding. After the decision, law enforcement had no way to prevent
illicit property from being moved out of our grasp before it was too
late.
In the past few months, our government has been unable to protect
more than $550 million that had been identified for forfeiture by
foreign governments. This money will remain a continuing resource for
criminal organizations, allowing them to fund extensive additional
criminal activity.
The bill we are considering today includes due process protections
similar to those used for restraining orders in anticipation of
domestic forfeiture judgments. It also requires the courts to verify
that the relevant foreign tribunal observes due process protections,
has subject matter jurisdiction, and is not acting as a result of
fraud.
This is just one small step to ensure that international criminal
organizations like the cartels that murdered Bobby Salcedo have fewer
resources to evade prosecution. It is for Bobby, his family, and the
thousands of others who have been affected by cartel violence around
the world that I fought to pass this important legislation.
{time} 1320
I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for allowing this
bill to come to the floor so quickly, and I want to recognize the
steadfast bipartisan support of my friend, Judge Ted Poe, and our
colleagues in the Senate, Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn.
This bill has the support of the Department of Justice, which is
eager to use this tool to protect our borders and make the world a
safer place. I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 4005, the Preserving Foreign Criminal Assets for
Forfeiture Act of 2010, makes a simple, yet very important, technical
change to Federal law to facilitate asset preservation for foreign
countries. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I
commend my colleague from California (Ms. Chu) in sponsoring this House
companion to S. 4005. I would like to thank her for her work on this
issue in bringing it before Congress.
Federal law currently provides procedures by which the Federal
Government can seek a court order to preserve or freeze certain
domestic assets on behalf of a foreign government. This is an important
tool to take out of the hands of criminals the proceeds that fund their
illegal operations.
Criminals will go to great lengths to stash their ill-gotten profits.
And whether it is an international drug cartel, a terrorist group,
organized crime syndicate, or simply a savvy computer hacker or corrupt
corporation, the key to putting a stop to their crimes is to put a
stranglehold on their money that they have illegally obtained. But a
recent D.C. circuit court of appeals decision limits the ability of the
United States to assist foreign governments in retaining and
restraining those assets.
The court interpreted section 2464 of title 28, governing the entry
of foreign judgments, to authorize a U.S. court to freeze assets only
after the foreign court's final forfeiture judgment. This is a
significant limitation on our ability to assist in foreign forfeiture
proceedings. If forced to await until a final foreign judgment is
entered, we run the risk of allowing thousands, if not millions, of
dollars to slip through our hands into the hands of the criminals.
In many countries, like Mexico, their judiciaries operate at a much
slower pace than ours, and their prosecution rates are much lower. In
fact, the criminal conviction rate in Mexico is less than 10 percent.
Therefore, a lot of times, by the time a forfeiture judgment is made,
the target has already moved their assets someplace else. This hampers
our ability to go after Mexican cartel members who have assets here in
the United States. So unless Congress clarifies the scope of section
2467, we run the risk of losing cooperation from foreign governments in
our request to seize assets that are held abroad.
The investigation into the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme
undertaken by Allen Stanford demonstrates our need for foreign
countries to continue to freeze assets on our behalf. To date,
Switzerland, Canada, and the United Kingdom have restrained a combined
$400 million on behalf of the United States in just the Stanford case.
This is money that certainly could have been lost if the United States
was prevented from requesting such assistance from our allies until a
final judgment was made.
The court of appeals was correct that it is not a court's role to
substitute its view or policy for the legislation which has been passed
by Congress. So I don't argue with the court's decision; but it is
Congress' obligation to change and fix the law so that this does not
occur in the future. With adoption of this legislation, Congress is
establishing a clear and simple policy on the restraint of foreign
assets.
So I commend my colleagues, Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn, and of
course the gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu), for their efforts to
clarify this statute. We must ensure that foreign governments can
continue to rely on our assistance with their criminal prosecutions and
the United States will continue to receive the same cooperation from
our foreign allies.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield such time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Preserving Criminal
Assets for Forfeiture Act, and I want to commend my colleagues, both
Ms. Chu and Judge Poe, for bringing this forward.
As he talked about, we've got a problem right now where a court case
has allowed a loophole, a major loophole, where criminal organizations
are able to shield their assets from our Justice Department. We do not
want, and we cannot allow, for these foreign criminal organizations,
whether it is drug cartels, money launderers, or others, to be able to
shield those assets from the law, not only removing the accountability,
but allowing them to keep those assets that they may use against our
law enforcement here in the United States. It is critical that we get
this passed quickly to close this loophole and prevent those types of
shielding from the law as it is currently happening.
I also want to point out something else that my colleague from Texas
talked about. In the Stanford case, this is a case where somebody
created a
[[Page H8541]]
Ponzi scheme that affected lots of people in my State, in Texas, and
other States. We cannot allow these kinds of people to be able to
shield their assets from justice. Ultimately, they need to have their
day in court, and they need to have to face justice for the things that
they did to our American citizens here.
I strongly support this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to
do so as well.
Ms. CHU. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the forfeiture concept is very important to the helping
of our law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. It is the
concept that criminals, drug cartels make a lot of money off the crimes
they commit; and that money, when confiscated, should be not given back
to the perpetrator, of course. It should be used for law enforcement
and other worthwhile endeavors.
Under current law, this problem is an extreme problem because of the
fact that many times, by the time the criminal cartel has been captured
and they go to trial, they have hidden their assets and then there is
no money to go back into the forfeiture.
So this legislation prevents this problem from occurring in the
future. It allows the seizure of those assets where they can be used
for law enforcement. It makes criminals pay the rent on the courthouse
and pay for the system that they have created, and it helps in the
forfeiture.
I cannot overemphasize how important forfeiture of illegal, ill-
gotten gain is to our law enforcement agencies. Just one example of
this: down on the Texas border where our sheriffs are operating on the
border, we have got one county. The sheriff in Hudspeth County doesn't
even have a budget for the motor pool; in other words, he has no
vehicles that are funded at taxpayer expense. So the only way he gets
vehicles is capturing drug cartels and drug runners when they come into
Hudspeth County and forfeiting their vehicles to law enforcement. That
is why they have a nice set of Escalades that they use in the fight on
the drug cartel.
So forfeiture, whether it is vehicles or whether it is money, is
extremely important to law enforcement; and we must continue to help
them where we can and make the criminals pay for the system they have
created and pay the rent on the courthouse.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 4005.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________