LACKEYS FOR THE FEDERAL LEVIATHAN

It is vital that citizens have a proper respect for their elected
representatives. It's hard, though, when you look at the level of their
debate. Take what many said in the battle over asset forfeiture reform.

Asset forfeiture symbolizes arbitrary power at its worst: federal agents can
confiscate people's property based on alleged violations of more than 200
federal laws. No proof is needed of wrong-doing: the feds merely must make an
accusation - based on nothing more than gossip or rumors about the misuse of
property.

Asset forfeiture abuses have been a national scandal since the early 1990s. The
House of Representatives finally got around to debating a reform bill on June
24. Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, made an
eloquent appeal for the need for reform.

And then the caterwauling began.

Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark) introduced a substitute "reform" bill that would
have greatly increased federal power to confiscate property. (Most of
Hutchinson's substitute bill was written by Justice Department lawyers.)
Hutchinson demanded to know: "How does disarming law enforcement fit into the
war on drugs?"

Thus, decreasing a DEA agent's power to seize your car is the equivalent of
taking away his sidearm. Apparently, the main "armament" in the war on drugs is
the sweeping power of law enforcement over nonviolent private citizens .

Several congressmen recited cases of gross abuses of forfeiture power. Rep.
Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) brushed off such concerns by introducing into the record
a letter he received from the superintendent of the New York State Police that
assured him that " We are aware of no instance, since the inception of the
federal equitable forfeiture sharing program, of any case involving this agency
whereby a hardship was endured by a truly innocent owner. It is not the
intention of this agency, nor, in my opinion, the intention of law enforcement
in general, to deprive truly innocent owners of property due to the illegal use
of the property by criminals."

Thus, the fact that a police chief asserted that he was not aware of any
specific injustice should have been sufficient to allay all concerns about any
abuses.

Rep. Ed. Bryant (R-TN) debunked other congressmen's comments about the number
of people whose money was seized though they had no drugs on them: "The way the
system works in this is when there are couriers...they either have the money or
they have the drugs, but they do not have them both... So we either find drugs
on the person or money on the person, depending which way they are going."
Thus, the fact that someone is caught with lots of money but no drugs
effectively proves that they are a drug courier.

Hyde's bill would allow judges the option to appoint counsel for indigent
citizens challenging forfeiture actions. This was denounced by opponents as
guaranteeing that taxpayers would be forced to bankroll attorneys for every
drug cartel chieftain in the hemisphere. Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn) fretted that
"frivolous claims would be encouraged by this legislation."

The problem occurs not from the government seizing people's property - but from
providing a mechanism to allow owners to get their goods back.

Some opponents of Hyde's bill were indignant that the House would even stoop to
consider such a bill. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) raised the caliber of the
debate with a perfect gem of logic: "The abuses that exist, and they do, they
represent the straw man in this debate because indeed we all want to do away
with the abuses."

Thus, because all members of Congress must be presumed to wish that abuses did
not occur, it is unfair and irrational to actually consider seizure abuses when
seeking to reform the law.

Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) pleaded with his colleagues: "Can we not strike a
balance between free enterprise and criminal enterprise?" Sweeney did not
specify whether he believed wrongful seizures by government agents should be
considered "criminal enterprise."

The Hutchinson "substitute" to expand government confiscatory power was
defeated by a vote of 268-155. Afterwards, Hyde's bill passed by a vote of
375-48. The bill now goes to the Senate. Unfortunately, the Clinton
administration, law enforcement lobbies, and many senators have their knives
out for the bill.

Reading a transcript of a congressional floor debate can be hell on idealism.
Regardless of whether this Congress trims forfeiture power, members of Congress
as a class cannot be trusted to understand - much less uphold - citizens'
constitutional rights.