Scope is one of the major areas of difference between the two bills. While H.R. 3922 is confined to improvements in the forfeiture of drug-related assets, the Administration's forfeiture proposal also amends the criminal forfeiture provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). A second major difference is the Administration proposal's inclusion of a substitute-assets provision (forfeiture of assets in substitute for assets obtained from the criminal enterprise that cannot be identified). H.R. 3299 has no such provision. Another difference, although not of the magnitude of the RICO and substitute assets issues, is H.R. 3299's provision for the civil forfeiture of real property used in serious drug crimes, which does not permit the forfeiture of land used for the domestic cultivation of marihuana. This statement also emphasizes the importance of the Tariff Act amendments to civil forfeiture efforts, since these amendments were not before the subcommittee in its consideration of forfeiture legislation in the last Congress. Further, the statement informs the subcommittee of a change in the Justice Department's policy regarding petitions for remission and mitigation, which is believed to require a revision in the hearing procedure provided in the criminal forfeiture procedures of H.R. 3299. The statement finally discusses the lowering of the standard of proof in criminal forfeiture cases.