2253

Legislative History Supporting Forfeiture Sale

The legislative history of the various statutes fully supports the analysis that after the final order of forfeiture, the court is not involved in the sale or disposal process because the sale is by the government of property that it owns. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 was the result of a 10-year effort by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and various administrations to reform, substantially and comprehensively, the Federal criminal laws, including some much needed changes to the civil and criminal forfeiture statutes. On June 23, 1983, the Judiciary Committee reported out a bill consisting of twelve separate titles, the third of which was captioned "Forfeiture". The Senate Report, No. 98-225, addressing the forfeiture amendments, is incorporated in its entirety as part of the House Report, No. 98-1030. House Report No. 98-1030 serves as the legislative history for specific amendments to a number of titles altered by the bill, particularly Titles 18, 19, 21, and 28 of the United States Code. Title III of the bill was eventually passed as The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984. See S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 191, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News, 3182. The existing legislative history reflects that Title III of the bill was meant to "enhance the use of forfeiture," particularly "the sanction of criminal forfeiture" to combat racketeering and drug-trafficking, two of the largest crime problems facing the nation. Id. at 3374. Congress sought by this new legislation to dismantle the economic power of criminal enterprises and forfeiture was intended as the mechanism "designed to strip these offender organizations of their economic power." Id. at 3375. The bill's primary focus was on "improving the procedures applicable to forfeiture cases." One of the primary problems addressed by Congress was how to provide a "funding mechanism to allow use of forfeiture proceeds to defray the escalating costs to the government in pursuing forfeitures..." Id. at 3376. The legislative history relating to the provision dealing with the sale of forfeited property is found in Parts A, B and C of the above referenced Senate Report (incorporated in the House Report which serves as the legislative history for the entire Act). It is the Committee Report on the bill that is the authoritative source for determining legislative intent. Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 77 (1984). Official committee reports represent the considered and collective understanding of those Congressmen involved in drafting and studying the proposed legislation, and should be entitled to great weight in construing a statute. Zuben v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 186 (1969). Part A discusses the relevant changes or modifications to section 1963(f) and (g) of Title 18 and section 881(e) of Title 21. Section 302 of the bill amends 18 U.S.C.§ 1963(f) and (g). Most importantly in the report it states: "Subsection (g) concerns matters regarding the disposition of property. Following the seizure of the property, the Attorney General is authorized to direct its disposal by sale or other commercially feasible means, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons. Id. at 3388 (emphasis added). Section 303 of the bill contains language with the same provisions for the disposition of property under Subsection 303(i) of the bill, to be incorporated in Title 21, Section 853(h), as part of the criminal forfeiture statute. Id. at 3396. Part C indicates that 21 U.S.C. § 881(e), contains the same provisions. Id. at 3399. Therefore, the existing legislative history clearly supports the position that the civil forfeiture statute contains the same authority of the Attorney General to sell or otherwise dispose of forfeited property. In fact, the Committee Report for section 881(e) provides some guidance of possible ways "other commercially feasible means" might be interpreted. The Committee Report states: Section 309 amends U.S.C. § 881(e) to achieve two purposes. First, it provides that the Attorney General may transfer drug related property forfeited under Title 21, United States Code, to another Federal agency, or to an assisting State or local agency, pursuant to Section 1616 of the Tariff act (19 U.S.C. § 1616), as amended in section 318 of the bill. Often, state and local law enforcement agencies give significant assistance in drug investigations that result in forfeitures to the United States. However, there is presently no mechanism whereby the forfeited property may be directly transferred to these agencies for their official use. This amendment, in conjunction with the Tariff Act amendment cited above, will permit such transfers and thereby enhance important cooperation between Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies in drug investigations. [cited in USAM 9-115.310]