On the recordJune 19, 2019
I appreciate the comments of my good friend and colleague from Alabama. We are not attempting to take away civil asset forfeiture as a tool. We are simply saying that due process ought to be carried out in every part of our judicial process and our law enforcement process. We are talking about people here--for instance, Terry Dekho, who was informed by his insurance company that they would not insure any assets at his grocery beyond $10,000. Each day, he took in his $10,000 or less, whatever it was, and it made a pattern. Ultimately, $35,000 of his hard-earned assets were frozen. For a small grocer, $35,000 is life or death for his business. All we are asking is for due process to be followed. Attorney General Holder, I think, saw the error of our ways when he reversed and made revisions that, ultimately, Attorney General Sessions reversed as well. I think we need to go back. We still have the opportunity to use the process but use it with due process. That is all I ask. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg). The amendment was agreed to. The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in part B of House Report 116-119. Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in part B of House Report 116-119.
