[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14115-14118]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1658, CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM 
                                  ACT

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 216 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 216

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1658) to provide a more just and uniform 
     procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the bill modified by the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill. Each section of that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Before 
     consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to 
     consider the amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be offered 
     only by Representative Hyde or his designee, may amend 
     portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, and shall be 
     considered as read. No further amendment to the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute made in order as original text 
     shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose 
     of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by 
     the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1345

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 216 is a modified, open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform 
Act.
  The Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill by a bipartisan vote 
of 27-to-3, which demonstrates the broad support this legislation has 
garnered across the ideological spectrum.
  The list of organizations that have endorsed H.R. 1658 ranges from 
the Eagle Forum, Americans for Tax Reform, and the NRA, to the National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Bar Association, 
and the ACLU.
  Despite this broad support, there are some who feel that this 
legislation may go too far, and the rule accommodates these concerns by 
providing ample opportunity to debate and amend the bill.
  Under the rule, 1 hour of general debate will be equally divided 
among the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill and, for the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute modified by the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, which is now printed in 
the bill.
  First, it will be in order to consider an amendment printed in the 
Committee on Rules report, which may be offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) or his designee.
  The Hyde amendment clarifies that the bill applies only to civil 
asset forfeiture, not criminal asset forfeiture. Few dispute that it is 
proper for the government to seize the yachts, planes and mansions of 
convicted drug dealers who finance their possessions with illegal drug 
money. Therefore, the bill does not alter the law with regard to 
criminal asset forfeiture.
  What H.R. 1658 seeks to address are the abuses of civil asset 
forfeiture law, where the government can seize the

[[Page 14116]]

property of a person who may never be accused of any crime or 
wrongdoing. The Hyde amendment makes the focus of this bill 
unmistakably clear.
  After consideration of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), the rule allows the House to debate and vote on any 
amendment, as long as it has been preprinted in the Congressional 
Record and complies with the Rules of the House.
  To ensure the orderly and timely consideration of H.R. 1658, the 
Chair is given the option of postponing votes and reducing voting time 
to 5 minutes on postponed questions, as long as the first vote in the 
series is a 15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides the minority with the option of offering a 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, American citizens hold dear the protections they are 
afforded under our Constitution. Sometimes, we take these rights for 
granted, but we are quick to identify violations of the principles that 
serve as a foundation of our system of justice and government.
  Our current civil asset forfeiture laws, at their core, deny basic 
due process, and the American people have reason to be both offended 
and concerned by the abuse of individual rights which happens sometimes 
under these laws.
  Today, the government may seize the assets of any individual if there 
is probable cause to believe that these assets have been part of some 
illegal activity. Strange as it may sound, the legal tenet behind this 
process is that it is the property that is being accused, not the 
person. That means that even if there is no related criminal charge or 
extra conviction against the individual, the government may confiscate 
his or her property. And the current law gives little consideration to 
whether the forfeiture of the property results in a mere inconvenience 
to the owner, or jeopardizes the owner's business or very livelihood.
  All that is required of the government is a demonstration of probable 
cause, an unreasonably low standard of proof, given the fundamental 
property rights at stake. Then the burden shifts to the property owner, 
who may have done nothing wrong and may have absolutely no knowledge of 
any crime to prove that his property is not subject to forfeiture.
  To reclaim his property, the owner must overcome a number of 
obstacles that turn the principles of presumed innocence on its head.
  To contest a seizure of property, the owner must come up with $5,000 
or a 10 percent cost bond, whichever is less. This serves little 
purpose other than to discourage individuals from seeking justice, and 
may even preclude low-income folks or those who have been made poor by 
the seizure of their assets altogether.
  Then, if the owner can come up with the money and afford to hire a 
lawyer, he has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that his property is ``innocent.'' And again, under current 
law, if the owner succeeds in reclaiming his property, the government 
owes him nothing for his trouble; no apology, no interest, no 
compensation, nothing whatsoever.
  H.R. 1658 would put into check the possibility of government to 
unintentionally trample over the rights of innocent citizens in its 
rightful pursuit of the criminal element in our society.
  Again, this bill does nothing to prevent the confiscation of assets 
owned by convicted criminals. It applies only to civil asset forfeiture 
in an effort to restore due process for law-abiding citizens who are 
not accused of doing any wrongdoing.
  The bill includes eight reforms to restore fairness to the law.
  Under H.R. 1658, if a property owner challenges a seizure, the burden 
would be placed on the government to prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that the property is ``guilty'' and is subject to forfeiture. 
In cases where the confiscation of property imposes substantial 
hardship on a citizen, judges would have the flexibility to release the 
property before final disposition of the case. Judges also would be 
able to appoint counsel for indigent citizens in civil forfeiture 
proceedings to ensure that the poorest in society are protected from 
the government's exercise of power. In addition, property owners would 
no longer have to file a bond, and they could sue if their property is 
damaged while in the government's possession.
  The bill also provides for interest payments to a property owner who 
is successful in winning his money back.
  Other reforms would increase the time period during which a citizen 
may challenge civil forfeiture and provide a uniform defense for 
innocent owners who knew nothing of the illegal use of their property 
or did all that they could reasonably do to prevent it.
  Mr. Speaker, these are reasonable reforms that bring the scales of 
justice closer to balance and to protect the rights of Americans. For 
those who disagree, the rule provides an opportunity to debate the 
finer points of the law and amend the legislation, if it is the will of 
this House.
  I look forward to today's debate, and I hope my colleagues will give 
serious consideration to the fundamental issues of fairness that this 
legislation embodies. I urge the swift passage of the rule so that the 
House may proceed with the bill's consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I generally support this rule, I do not support 
the requirement that amendments to this bill must be preprinted in the 
Congressional Record. We offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules 
to delete this provision from the bill, but it was defeated.
  I am concerned that there seems to be an increasing pattern on the 
part of my friends on the Committee on Rules majority to report rules 
which allow only those amendments which are preprinted. This may be 
helpful to the committee of jurisdiction in preparing for the floor, 
but it can be troublesome to the rest of the House Members who are then 
limited in their opportunities to contribute their ideas to the overall 
debate. A truly open rules process does not limit the offering of 
amendments in this way.
  The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, H.R. 1658, gives people whose 
property has been seized by the Federal Government because of alleged 
connection to criminal activity improved chances to recover that 
property.
  To some degree, we are today attempting to amend the law of 
unintended consequences, a law of nature which usually applies in 
situations where apparent only through the luxury of hindsight.
  Civil asset forfeiture in its current form was created to fight the 
war on drugs. Law enforcement officials have reported that civil asset 
forfeiture is one of law enforcement's most effective tools and have 
expressed concern that H.R. 1658 would impair the ability of law 
enforcement to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their illegal 
activities, and I hope that an amendment will pass today that will 
satisfy the concerns of law enforcement.
  However, in recent years, many have complained that the government's 
authority to seize property has been used excessively and has resulted 
in abuse suffered by innocent property owners.
  Civil assets forfeiture differs from criminal assets forfeiture in 
that criminal forfeitures are part of a criminal proceeding against a 
defendant, and the verdict of forfeiture is rendered by a court or jury 
only if a defendant is found guilty of the underlying crime.
  In contrast, civil asset forfeiture focuses on property connected to 
an alleged crime. The government targets the property, and because the 
property itself is the defendant, the guilt or innocence of the 
property owner is said to be irrelevant.
  This bill requires the government to prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that the property confiscated was subject to forfeiture 
because of illegal misuse. Under current law, the burden of proof lies 
with the person whose property was seized, and the government has only 
to show probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture.

[[Page 14117]]

  Under the bill, an owner would not be required to forfeit property at 
the time of the illegal conduct if the person did not know of the 
conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or, if the property owner did all 
that he reasonably could to keep the property from being used 
illegally. The bill requires the Federal Government to give 60 days 
written notice when confiscating private property.
  Under the bill, a person would also be entitled to the immediate 
release of seized property if continued possession by the government 
would cause substantial hardship, such as preventing the functioning of 
a business, preventing an individual from working, or leaving an 
individual homeless.
  Moreover, the bill provides financial damages to be paid for the 
destruction, injury or loss of goods or merchandise while forfeited 
property is in the government's possession.
  As was pointed out during the hearing in the Committee on Rules 
hearing, this bill is sponsored by the members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary on both sides of the aisle who often represent divergent 
points of view. The fact that they are in concert regarding this 
measure favorably commends it to the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to express my support for this rule which allows consideration 
of the base bill, but also a substitute bill that has been offered by 
myself, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney). This substitute that is being offered is drawn 
from the provisions of a bill that passed out of the Committee on the 
Judiciary last year that was supported by both the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of 
that committee, and the Justice Department.

                              {time}  1400

  It was a compromise proposal that accomplished significant reform, 
but also did not do damage to the legitimate interests of law 
enforcement. So that is the essence of the substitute that will be 
considered under this rule.
  I want to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his leadership on this 
critical issue. Certainly in our society we know there is need for 
reform, so he has led the fight on that. This substitute I believe 
improves on the effort that he is trying to accomplish in a way that is 
consistent and balances the interests of law enforcement.
  Some of the things provided in the substitute include very similar 
provisions to the base bill in terms of protecting our citizens. It 
includes eliminating the cost bond, it includes reimbursing claimants 
for damage the government might do to an innocent person's property. 
Most importantly, it shifts the burden of proof to the government in an 
asset forfeiture case, and it also provides paying of interest on 
assets that are returned.
  So there are many similarities and significant reform, accomplished 
both in the substitute and the base bill. But there are some 
significant differences as well.
  The first one and probably the most significant is the burden of 
proof. The substitute that is offered continues to ensure that the 
government bears the burden of proving that the property has been used 
in illegal activity, but maintains the same standard of proof as in all 
civil cases, which is a preponderance of the evidence.
  Let us examine the distinction, here. If the standard of proof is 
clear and convincing, then there will be cases in which the government 
can show by the weight of the evidence that the money was used in 
criminal activity, but yet the criminal will be able to maintain those 
assets. I believe that is fundamentally wrong.
  The greatest problem with the high standard of proof, clear and 
convincing standard, is whenever there is that sophisticated 
international money laundering on behalf of the south American drug 
cartels. Such schemes invariably involve shadowy transactions through 
bank secrecy jurisdictions conducted by shell corporations claiming to 
be in the travel, import-export, or money remitting businesses.
  Most of these cases are dependent upon circumstantial evidence, so it 
would be difficult to prosecute to obtain those assets with such a 
standard that is unusual in ordinary civil cases.
  The American people certainly want fairness in their forfeiture laws, 
but they do not want to grant extraordinary protections to the 
financial henchmen of the drug lord. So that is the distinction.
  Another one is in reference to appointment of counsel. The Department 
of Justice undertakes 30,000 seizures a year, most of them in drug and 
alien smuggling cases. The base bill authorized the appointment of 
counsel in all of those cases, at taxpayers' expense. For anyone who 
asserts an interest in the seized property, the potential for abuse is 
clearly there.
  The substitute continues to allow for the appointment of counsel, but 
with greater safeguards to eliminate that abuse.
  There are other distinctions in there. The innocent owner defense is 
somewhat different in the substitute language. The base bill provides 
that when there is an innocent owner, and there are de facto innocent 
owners who are bona fide purchasers, and those also who receive the 
property through probate. We see that as a problem. The substitute 
maintains that innocent owner defense but ensures that the provision 
will not be used by criminals to shield their property through sham 
transactions.
  For example, the probate provision would allow a drug dealer to amass 
a large fortune, and then to transfer that by his will to his criminal 
cohorts or his mistress, and upon his death, if he has died in a 
shootout or an arrest, then it would transfer without being able to to 
be seized, even though it is clearly the result of drug trafficking. So 
that is fundamentally wrong, and the substitute would correct that 
problem.
  There are a number of other distinctions, Mr. Speaker, in the base 
bill and the substitute that is being offered, but we believe that the 
rule is fair that allows this. It would allow a fair debate on this.
  I will point out that law enforcement has expressed concern in the 
base bill, from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police. So I would ask my 
colleagues to support the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that on our side we support the rule, 
a modified open rule, and urge its support by all the Members. We want 
to try to proceed to general debate and the amendments, and hope that 
this measure may terminate and be concluded in final passage by this 
evening.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me reiterate that the criteria does 
nothing to undermine laws that allow for the confiscation of property 
in the case of a convicted criminal. Instead, the bill focuses on the 
potential abuse under civil forfeiture laws when a property owner may 
not be accused of any crime or wrongdoing.
  The reforms in the bill protect the rights of innocent citizens to 
basic due process. The bill has the support of numerous organizations 
who span the ideological spectrum, but if my colleagues do not share 
the views of this broad coalition, they are free to offer amendments 
under this fair rule.
  Every Member of the House should support this rule, which provides 
for a

[[Page 14118]]

full and fair debate on civil asset forfeiture reform in the interest 
of restoring fairness to our system of justice. I urge a yes vote on 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________