AMENDMENT NO. 15 IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
OFFERED BY MR. PAUL AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR AMENDMENT NO. 25 IN THE NATURE
OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR.
HUTCHINSON
1999 Ron Paul 67:1 Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a
substiute as a substitute for amendment
the in the nature of a substitute.
1999 Ron Paul 67:3 Amendment No. 15 in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. PAUL as a substitute
for amendment No. 25 in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. HUTCHINSON:
1999 Ron Paul 67:4 Strike all after the enacting clause and insert
the following:
1999 Ron Paul 67:5 SECTION 1. FORFEITURE CONDITION.
No property may be forfeited under any
civil asset forfeiture law unless the property’s
owner has first been convicted of the
criminal offense that makes the property
subject to forfeiture. The term “civil forfeiture
law” refers to any provision of Federal
law (other than the Tariff Act of 1930 or
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) providing
for the forfeiture of property other than as a
sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal
offense.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
1999 Ron Paul 67:6 Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to
offer a substitute amendment for the
Hutchinson amendment. My understanding
is that the Hyde amendment
would improve current situations very
much when it comes to seizure and forfeiture,
and I strongly endorse the motivation
of the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. HYDE) in his bill. I have a suggestion
in my amendment to make this
somewhat better.
1999 Ron Paul 67:7 But I rise in strong opposition to the
Hutchinson amendment, because not
only do I believe that the Hutchinson
amendment would undo everything
that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
HYDE) is trying to do, but I sincerely
believe that the Hutchinson amendment
would make current law worse. I
think it is very important that we
make a decision here on whether or not
we want to continue the effort to build
an armed police force out of Washington,
D.C.
1999 Ron Paul 67:8 The trends have been very negative
over the last 20 or 30 years. It has to do
a lot with the exuberance we show with
our drug laws. I know they are all well-intended,
but since 1976, when I recall
the first criminal law that we passed
here, they always pass nearly unanimously.
Everyone is for law and order.
But I think this is a perfect example of
unintended consequences, the problems
that we are dealing with today, because
it is not the guilty that suffer.
So often it is the innocent who suffer.
1999 Ron Paul 67:9 I guess if Members are for a powerful
national police and they want to be
casual about the civil liberties of innocent
people, I imagine they could go
along and ruin this bill by passing the
Hutchinson amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 67:10 I think it is very important to consider
another alternative. Mine addresses
this, because in spite of how
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE)
addresses this, which is in a very positive
way, I really would like to go one
step further. My bill, my substitute
amendment, says this: “No property
may be forfeited under any Federal
civil asset forfeiture law unless the
property owner has first been convicted
of the criminal offense that makes the
property subject to forfeiture.”
1999 Ron Paul 67:11 Is that too much to ask in America,
that we do not take people’s property if
they are not even convicted of a crime?
That seems to be a rather modest request.
That is the way it used to be. We
used to never even deal with laws like
this at the national level. It is only recently
that we decided we had to take
away the State’s right and obligation
to enforce criminal law.
1999 Ron Paul 67:12 I think it is time we thought about
going in another direction. That is why
I am very, very pleased with this bill
on the floor today in moving in this direction.
I do not think we should have
a nationalized police force. I think that
we should be very cautious in everything
that we do as we promote law.
1999 Ron Paul 67:13 This bill of the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. HYDE) could be strengthened
with my amendment by saying that no
forfeiture should occur, but the Hutchinson
amendment makes it just the
preponderance of evidence that they
can take property. This is not right.
This is not what America is all about.
We are supposed to be innocent until
proven guilty, but property is being
taken from the American people with
no charge of crime.
1999 Ron Paul 67:14 They lose their property and they
never get it back. They cannot afford
to fight the courts, and there is a lot of
frustration in this country today over
this. This is why this bill is on this
floor today. I am delighted it is here on
this floor.
1999 Ron Paul 67:15 I ask people to vote for my amendment,
which would even make this
better bill, but certainly I think it
would be wise not to vote for the
Hutchinson amendment to make it
much worse. I certainly think that on
final passage, we certainly should support
the Hyde bill.
