[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 142 (Tuesday, September 20, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5690-H5693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 RESTRAINING EXCESSIVE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY THROUGH THE EXPLOITATION OF 
                    CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE TOOLS ACT

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5523) to amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit the 
Internal Revenue Service from carrying out seizures relating to a 
structuring transaction unless the property to be seized derived from 
an illegal source or the funds were structured for the purpose of 
concealing the violation of another

[[Page H5691]]

criminal law or regulation, to require notice and a post-seizure 
hearing for such seizures, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5523

       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 ``Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT 
     Act'' or the ``Restraining Excessive Seizure of Property 
     through the Exploitation of Civil Asset Forfeiture Tools 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SEIZURE REQUIREMENTS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO STRUCTURING TRANSACTIONS.

       Section 5317(c)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any property'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Any property''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Internal revenue service seizure requirements with 
     respect to structuring transactions.--
       ``(i) Property derived from an illegal source.--Property 
     may only be seized by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) by reason of a claimed violation of 
     section 5324 if the property to be seized was derived from an 
     illegal source or the funds were structured for the purpose 
     of concealing the violation of a criminal law or regulation 
     other than section 5324.
       ``(ii) Notice.--Not later than 30 days after property is 
     seized by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the Internal Revenue Service shall--

       ``(I) make a good faith effort to find all persons with an 
     ownership interest in such property; and
       ``(II) provide each such person with a notice of the 
     person's rights under clause (iv).

       ``(iii) Extension of notice under certain circumstances.--
     The Internal Revenue Service may apply to a court of 
     competent jurisdiction for one 30-day extension of the notice 
     requirement under clause (ii) if the Internal Revenue Service 
     can establish probable cause of an imminent threat to 
     national security or personal safety necessitating such 
     extension.
       ``(iv) Post-seizure hearing.--If a person with a property 
     interest in property seized pursuant to subparagraph (A) by 
     the Internal Revenue Service requests a hearing by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction within 30 days after the date on which 
     notice is provided under subclause (ii), such property shall 
     be returned unless the court holds an adversarial hearing and 
     finds within 30 days of such request (or such longer period 
     as the court may provide, but only on request of an 
     interested party) that there is probable cause to believe 
     that there is a violation of section 5324 involving such 
     property and probable cause to believe that the property to 
     be seized was derived from an illegal source or the funds 
     were structured for the purpose of concealing the violation 
     of a criminal law or regulation other than section 5324.''.

     SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF INTEREST RECEIVED IN ACTION TO RECOVER 
                   PROPERTY SEIZED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
                   BASED ON STRUCTURING TRANSACTION.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 
     before section 140 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139G. INTEREST RECEIVED IN ACTION TO RECOVER PROPERTY 
                   SEIZED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE BASED ON 
                   STRUCTURING TRANSACTION.

       ``Gross income shall not include any interest received from 
     the Federal Government in connection with an action to 
     recover property seized by the Internal Revenue Service 
     pursuant to section 5317(c)(2) of title 31, United States 
     Code, by reason of a claimed violation of section 5324 of 
     such title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting before the item relating to section 140 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 139G. Interest received in action to recover property seized by 
              the Internal Revenue Service based on structuring 
              transaction.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to interest received on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 5523, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the gentleman from New York and I are 
going to tell you a fascinating story. It is a story that when we tell 
it to our constituents at home, there is such a level of concern about 
what they have heard has happened that it really gets their attention. 
The good news is that the Ways and Means Committee and others have come 
along and tried to come up with a remedy.
  So here is what has been going on: for the past 2 years, the Ways and 
Means Oversight Subcommittee has been investigating how the IRS has 
abused its civil asset forfeiture authority. We heard from numerous 
people about how the IRS seized their life savings with no notice 
simply because they had deposited their own money into their own bank 
accounts in amounts of less than $10,000. You heard that right--their 
own money into their own bank accounts with no underlying bad act, and 
the IRS came in and seized their assets with no notice.
  It was so outrageous and so egregious in some of these cases, Mr. 
Speaker, that the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service actually 
apologized to some of these people. Now, getting an apology out of the 
IRS Commissioner was like birthing a calf, but we got the apology from 
him, and we have been able to move forward.
  Subsequent to that, the Internal Revenue Service has changed their 
policy--which is okay, it is a good step--but we have to go farther and 
we need to change the underlying statute.
  Now, here is the back story: most people don't know that the law 
requires deposits of more than $10,000 to be reported to the 
government. It is not a bad policy, and it is in place in case there is 
a human trafficking operation or a mafia front group or a meth lab that 
is trying to get around some bank secrecy acts. Others don't know that 
it is actually illegal to intentionally avoid that reporting 
requirement.
  Two Maryland farming families, the Sowers and the Taylors, went 
through this ordeal. In their cases, bank tellers told them that it 
would be helpful if they could deposit all the cash they earned by 
selling farmers market products in amounts less than $10,000.
  So, Mr. Speaker, in other words, the bank teller says: Look, it is a 
big hassle when you come in here with more than $10,000. It would be 
much easier if you come in with less than $10,000 because we, the bank, 
won't have to make a report.
  The Sowers and the Taylors--nicest people ever--said: Sure.
  That is where the trouble began. As they requested, they kept their 
deposits under $10,000 to help out the tellers.
  Likewise, the Hirsch brothers in New York, who own a convenience 
store distributorship, do a lot of cash business; and just because they 
made large cash deposits at their bank, the government seized their 
savings of $400,000.
  Andrew Clyde, who owns an armory down in Athens, Georgia, has a 
similar story. His store's insurance policy only covers up to $10,000 
in cash losses. So he does what any commonsense, clear-thinking person 
would do, and that is to take less than $10,000 to the bank because 
more than $10,000 wouldn't be covered by his own insurance policy.
  Mr. Speaker, now, even after the IRS had seized these accounts and 
the IRS realized that there was no criminal activity attached to these 
funds--in other words, they realized this is not what this law is all 
about--the IRS kept the money, and people like the families that I just 
mentioned spent time and resources trying to get them back. Some of 
them, like Mr. Clyde and the Taylors, are still fighting today.
  Mr. Speaker, the entire subcommittee, both sides of the aisle, was 
scandalized to learn about this. It began to say, number one, how can 
this be? And number two, what can we do about it?
  Mr. Crowley, my friend from New York, and I thought it was a good 
step that the IRS changed their policy. But we think an even better 
step is to pass this underlying bill.
  What the bill does is it says that the IRS would only be able to 
seize structured assets if they are used to conceal another crime or 
they are derived from an illegal source. It would also give procedural 
protections, like the right to a speedy hearing, to people from whom 
the IRS seizes money. Finally, if the government ultimately gives 
assets and interest back when challenged, our bill would exempt that 
interest from Federal income tax. It serves to help right the wrong, if 
only in a small way,

[[Page H5692]]

for the money being improperly taken in the first place.
  Unfortunately, the bill comes up too late to keep the Clydes, the 
Sowers, the Hirsches, and the Taylors from dealing with this problem. 
But they have done all Americans and this body a service by standing up 
and being willing to tell their stories so that we can respond. We 
cannot let the IRS abuse this discretion and abuse this power. I am 
pleased that the overwhelming and, in fact, the unanimous Ways and 
Means Committee has supported this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2016.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady: I am writing concerning H.R. 5523, the 
     ``Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act''.
       As a result of your having consulted with the Committee on 
     Financial Services concerning provisions in the bill that 
     fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to forgo action 
     on the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House 
     Floor. The Committee on Financial Services takes this action 
     with our mutual understanding that, by foregoing 
     consideration of H.R. 5523 at this time, we do not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation, and that our Committee will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as this or similar 
     legislation moves forward so that we may address any 
     remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. 
     Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of 
     an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 5523 and 
     would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be included in your committee's report to accompany 
     the legislation, as well as in the Congressional Record 
     during floor consideration thereof.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jeb Hensarling,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2016.
     Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hensarling: Thank you for your letter 
     concerning H.R. 5523, the ``Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT 
     Act,'' on which the Financial Services Committee was granted 
     an additional referral.
       I am most appreciative of your decision to waive formal 
     consideration of H.R. 5523 so that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor. I acknowledge that although 
     you waived formal consideration of the bill, the Financial 
     Services Committee is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over 
     the subject matter contained in those provisions of the bill 
     that fall within your Rule X jurisdiction. I would support 
     your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of 
     conferees on any House-Senate conference involving this 
     legislation.
       I will include a copy of our letters in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of this legislation on the House 
     floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kevin Brady,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank my good friend, my colleague from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam), for his good work on this issue. Tenacity does 
pay off. The gentleman has really kept his nose to the grindstone on 
this. Now, I don't want the gentleman to get a bad reputation for 
working with me on so many issues. I just want to point that out for 
the record.
  Today is a good day for American taxpayers as, hopefully, the House 
of Representatives will soon pass the Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act 
to enact vital reforms to the Federal Government's civil asset 
forfeiture process.
  Civil asset forfeiture is an important tool for the IRS and for other 
Federal agencies. They use it to go after ill-gotten funds from drug 
dealers, human traffickers, terrorists, and other criminals.
  This bill will not weaken that vital law enforcement tool one bit. 
But this legislation will codify into law much-needed reforms to the 
process to stop abusive asset forfeitures--abusive seizures such as the 
ability of the government to take a person's bank account without ever 
charging them with a crime.
  The Oversight Subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee, under the 
guidance of our chairman, Mr. Roskam, undertook a painstaking 17-month 
investigation. I think this is a good example of the committee process 
and how we can work functionally, unlike what we have seen in other 
committees here in the House.
  This investigation included holding a series of congressional 
hearings, meeting with officials from a number of Federal agencies, and 
continually keeping the pressure on the IRS to practically reach out 
and return any asset seized from people who were never charged with any 
crimes. In particular, Mr. Speaker, hearing from the victims themselves 
was incredibly moving and touching, I think, to Members of both sides 
of the aisle.
  These actions culminated in this bipartisan legislation that passed 
the Ways and Means Committee unanimously. This bill, the Clyde-Hirsch-
Sowers RESPECT Act, aims to take what we have learned and fix the 
system to prevent the seizure of bank accounts of law-abiding citizens. 
Specifically, this legislation prohibits the IRS from taking any assets 
related to structuring unless the funds are from an illegal source or 
the funds were structured to conceal other criminal activity.
  Additionally, to provide due process to affected taxpayers, the bill 
requires the IRS to notify an account holder of a seizure within 30 
days of that seizure. Once an account is seized, the bill allows the 
person whose assets were seized to seek a post-seizure hearing within 
30 days. Now, even that, for some, can be onerous; but it is a start. 
We know that those engaged in illegal actions will usually not contest 
the seizure. They won't go to the agency and contest it. But for those 
who committed no crimes, this bill, in many respects, levels the 
playing field.
  But the passage of this bill isn't the last part of this fight. I 
know my colleague, Mr. Roskam, and I will continue to keep pressure on 
the Federal Government to quickly return the assets of those innocent 
taxpayers not charged with any crimes whose assets are still being held 
by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passage of this legislation and 
correcting a wrong in the law that exists to help law-abiding citizens 
hold on to their hard-earned resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Crowley for his work, his advocacy, 
and his willingness to make suggestions to improve this bill so we 
could enjoy unanimous support. We are in a very good situation on it.
  Let me just give you a little bit more color commentary, if I could, 
because I think it is important for us to recognize the role that we in 
this House play as a coequal branch of government pushing back on abuse 
when we see it in the executive branch, and this is part of our 
experience.
  So here is the back story: it occurred to us, Mr. Speaker, that these 
were certain cases--and I mentioned them a minute ago; I gave the names 
of these individuals a minute ago--that we had come to learn about. The 
IRS then subsequently changed their policy.
  But then it begs the question: What happens to the people, number 
one, that we don't know about who are still stuck in the system?
  So the IRS, in other words, said that we are not going to do this 
moving forward.
  What about the people that they had done this to?
  In other words, they had assets they had confiscated.
  So we ended up having another hearing, again, bipartisan. The result 
of that hearing, a result of a unanimous voice on the subcommittee 
itself, was that the IRS said: We are going to come up with a petition 
process. The IRS has written to 1,100 people involving approximately 
700 cases, and they have heard back from 380 people so far who have 
said: You have wrongly taken this money.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you a quick story.
  It was a few months ago--I don't remember the exact date--but it was 
a

[[Page H5693]]

few months ago when I asked for a briefing from the Department of 
Justice and the Internal Revenue Service on these pending cases. I 
thought, Mr. Speaker, based on these hearings and so forth, that the 
meeting at my request was going to take 10 minutes and that the 
officials were going to come in and my question was: What is happening 
to the people who are caught in the middle of this? I thought they were 
going to come in and they would say, you know: Mr. Roskam, here is a 
list or whatever. We can't give you a list, but here is all disposed 
of.
  No, no, no, no. An hour and a half later, at the end of this 
discussion, I turned to the Department of Justice officials, Mr. 
Speaker, and I said: I am more afraid of you now than when I started 
this meeting. Do you want to know why I am afraid of you? Because you 
are acting in a completely obtuse manner.
  When I asked what happened to these people's money, the officials 
told me, Mr. Speaker, that the money had been absorbed into the Federal 
system. Let me repeat that. They said that the money had been absorbed 
into the Federal system--wrongly absorbed, but absorbed nevertheless. 
That this could come out of the mouth of someone who works for the 
Department of Justice I found to be completely absurd.
  I asked a simple question: What happens if my constituents owe a tax 
liability, don't pay the tax liability, and spend the money on 
something else? What do you do to them? And I answered the question: 
What you do to them is you put a lien on their house and you put them 
in prison, that is what you do.
  So don't you see, Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with? We have got 
to get to this situation, and we have got to get to making sure that 
power is used appropriately and it is not abused. I think this 
legislation that, again, is bipartisan, comes forward and it says it 
strikes the right balance, and if there is an underlying bad act--that 
is, an illegal activity--there is no one that is going to find any 
comfort in this bill; however, for the innocent folks who are not 
abusing this, they will find great comfort.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, Congress has a chance to right a wrong in 
the law by passing this bill.
  We always say that, in the U.S., you are innocent until proven 
guilty, but the civil asset forfeiture policies imposed by the Federal 
Government don't always reflect that basic premise.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  But let me be clear. While we are correcting an injustice in one 
area, this bill reminds us of the importance of a larger discussion on 
much-needed criminal justice reform.
  I hope that this larger issue can also be tackled by this year's 
Congress. Just like the Clyde family and the Hirsch family and the 
Sowers family, whom we named this bill for, far too many American 
families have seen the U.S. justice system not work on behalf of them. 
We need to address that issue of criminal justice reform in the same 
bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Roskam and the entire Ways and 
Means Committee dealt with civil asset forfeiture.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know how difficult it is to birth a calf. I am a 
boy from Woodside, Queens. I used to say we had no running water 
growing up where I came from. Well, we had running water in my home, 
but we didn't have any streams; we had no ponds, no lakes. The closest 
I got to the water--I want the violins to come out now--the closest I 
got to the water was Rockaway Beach in Queens. But my wife is from 
Montana, and she grew up on a ranch. She may certainly have an 
inclination how difficult that is.
  But let me say, on behalf of the American people, we want to 
apologize--though it is not necessarily our place--for the entire 
Federal Government. We didn't impose this on the Clyde family or the 
Hirsch family or the Sowers family, but they do deserve an apology, not 
just from the IRS, but from the American people as well, all taxpayers.
  But the Clyde family, the Hirsch family, and the Sowers family, I 
don't know where their families came from. I do not know their 
ethnicity. I do not know their political persuasion. I do not know what 
religion they practice, if any at all. But what I do know is they are 
American citizens, so they deserve to be treated with justice under the 
law.
  In these particular cases, they sought justice and were denied it; 
and we are restoring that today with the passage of this bill, not only 
for them, but for all Americans who find themselves in this situation. 
For that, I am grateful for my friend from Illinois, for his tenacity; 
but I am also grateful for the tenacity of these families to not sit 
back and allow this to happen not only to themselves, but to 
potentially future victims. That is what their legacy will be. I hope 
their families are proud of what they have accomplished.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think Mr. Crowley made a great point, and that is there is a great 
temptation when the Federal Government comes after you--I would 
imagine, a great temptation--to cower to the intimidation. The 
government has a lot of power, and the government in this case 
figuratively reached out and grabbed these families by the throat and 
choked them and used power that was not correct to use against them, 
and it was unjust.
  It would have been an easy thing for these families to just sit back 
and take it and so forth, but they didn't do that. I think the fact 
that they didn't do that, Mr. Speaker, and they are willing to stand up 
and fight is a good foreshadowing of things to come. In other words, 
they told their story; Members of Congress heard their story, and we 
have been able to move and seek justice, not only changing underlying 
policies within the executive branch, but also changing an underlying 
statute.
  The other body has introduced this, and I am hopeful that it will be 
considered in an expeditious manner.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his 
support and advocacy. I urge passage of the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5523, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________