PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 10, 1993
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act - Amends the Federal judicial code to exclude from the customs and tax exemption under tort claims procedures a claim based on the negligent destruction, injury, or loss of goods or merchandise (including real property) while in the possession of a customs or other law enforcement officer. Extends the period for filing claims in certain in rem proceedings. Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that: (1) in all suits or actions brought for the forfeiture of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage seized under the provisions of any law relating to the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, with exceptions, and for the recovery of the value of any forfeited property because of violation of any such law, the burden of proof is on the Government to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the property was subject to forfeiture; (2) any person claiming such property may at any time within 60 days from the date of the first publication of the notice of seizure file a claim with the appropriate customs officer, who shall transmit such claim to the U.S. attorney for the district in which seizure was made; and (3) if the person filing such claim (or a claim regarding seized property under any other provision of law that incorporates by reference the seizure, forfeiture, and condemnation procedures of the customs laws) is financially unable to obtain representation, the court may appoint counsel, subject to specified requirements. Specifies that a claimant is entitled to immediate release of seized property if continued possession by the Government would cause the claimant substantial hardship. Sets forth procedures regarding the request for release, return of property, and time for decision by the court on a complaint for such return. Makes sums in the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund available for the payment of court-awarded compensation for representation of claimants under the Tariff Act, with respect to seizure claims by individuals financially unable to obtain representation of counsel.
People & committees
Sen. Jeffords, James M. [R-VT] · R–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S15612-15614)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1655 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1655 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1655 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1655 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.