[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15368-15369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 24, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1658) to 
     provide a more just and uniform procedure for Federal civil 
     forfeitures, and for other purposes:

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.
  The Constitution is the foundation of our great nation. From an early 
age we are taught

[[Page 15369]]

that we are entitled to basic rights and liberties, and we cherish 
these rights and protections afforded under our Constitution. When 
these rights are violated, we are quick to demand action and 
correction.
  This is a time when we must demand action and correction. The current 
civil asset forfeiture laws abuse individual rights by denying basic 
due process.
  Under current law, there are two kinds of forfeiture--criminal asset 
forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture. Under criminal asset forfeiture, 
if you are indicted and convicted of a crime, the government may seize 
your property if your property was used, however indirectly, in 
facilitating the crime for which you have been convicted.
  I have no problem with that law. Not only is it a good deterrent 
against a number of crimes, but it does not deny anyone their 
Constitutional rights.
  However, under civil asset forfeiture, the government can seize your 
property, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the property owner. 
The government can seize property merely by showing there is probable 
cause to believe that these assets have been part of some illegal 
activity. This means that even if there is no related criminal charge 
or conviction against the individual, the government may confiscate his 
or her property.
  And property can be anything--your car, your home, your business. The 
government can take anything and everything premised on the weakest of 
criminal charges--probable cause.
  Moreover, 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 livelihood.
  To reclaim this property, no matter the inconvenience, the property 
owner must jump through a number of hoops.
  First of which, the owner must pay a 10 percent cost bond or $5,000, 
whichever is less. For low-income people or for people who have been 
made poor by this civil asset seizure, coming up with the money for 
this bond may be extremely difficult or impossible. This bond serves to 
discourage people from contesting the seizure.
  If a property owner can come up with this money, he still has the 
burden of proof.
  The government should have this burden. We are still ``innocent until 
proven guilty.'' And under criminal law, that is the way it is. If 
someone is charged with a crime, the government has the burden to prove 
that the person is guilty.
  However, under civil asset forfeiture, it is the exact opposite. The 
owner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that either the 
property was not connected to any wrongdoing or the owner did not know 
and did not consent to the property's illegal use.
  And to top it off, if the owner succeeds in reclaiming his property, 
the government owes him nothing for his trouble--not even an apology.
  H.R. 1658 calls for reforms that protect the rights of innocent 
citizens while still allowing the government to pursue criminals and 
their property. First, H.R. 1658 puts the burden of proof, by clear and 
convincing evidence, onto the government, where it should be. Second, 
it gives the judge the flexibility to release the property, pending the 
final disposition, if the confiscation of the property imposes a 
substantial hardship on the owner.
  Under H.R. 1658, Judges also would be able to appoint counsel in 
civil forfeiture proceedings for our poorest citizens to ensure that 
they are protected from the government's exercise of power. 
Furthermore, property owners would no longer have to file a bond, and 
could sue if their property is damaged while in the government's 
possession.
  In our haste to punish drug traffickers, Congress failed to 
adequately protect the rights of our citizens.
  H.R. 1658 restores these protections and returns law enforcement in 
drug crimes to the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence.

                          ____________________