[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1326-H1341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXCLUSIONARY RULE REFORM ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 61 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 666.
{time} 1624
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 666) to control crime by exclusionary rule reform, with
Mr. Riggs in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier, pending
was amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers].
Is there further debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, first of all, that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan, if enacted into law ultimately,
allows for a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. I
understand the gentleman makes a distinction between how his amendment
is worded and how H.R. 666 is now worded. I will address that in a
moment.
But I want to point out that both H.R. 666 and the amendment of the
gentleman from Michigan would codify in some form a good faith
exception to the exclusionary rule. My point, obviously, is that if all
constitutional rights are not going to come to an end under the
amendment of the gentleman, which allows a good faith exception to the
exclusionary rule, all constitutional rights are not going to come to
an end under H.R. 666.
Let me more precisely address the difference between the amendment
from the gentleman from Michigan and this bill.
Basically, though there is another exception in the gentleman's
amendment, basically the gentleman's amendment would codify the Leon
case which allows this good faith exception when there is a warrant
used by a police officer and that warrant is later determined to be
invalid. But the point
[[Page H1327]] of our bill, H.R. 666, goes to what the previous
speaker stated, before we resolved into the House of Representatives
for other business, and that is, not every search requires a search
warrant. There are a list of exceptions where a search can be perfectly
legal just as an arrest can be perfectly legal without a search
warrant.
The point we have here comes down to the same idea on a good faith
occurrence. If in the course of a search an officer on an objectively
reasonable basis believes that a search is legal without a search
warrant, not an arbitrary basis, not a capricious basis, but a
reasonably objective basis comes to that conclusion, it serves no
purpose under the entire theory of the exclusionary rule, which is to
deter misconduct by police officers, to at that point exclude the
evidence.
That is why H.R. 666 is better as written than it would be as amended
by the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan. That is why I urge
rejection of that amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words. I rise proudly in support of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to have a colloquy with the gentleman from
Michigan, because he is getting beat up here on the floor. The way I
understand the gentleman's amendment is that it does absolutely nothing
but codify the Leon decision, which we hear praised over there. But
then when we offer it, we hear it attacked. So I am a little bit
confused.
I also thought we got a little window into the fact that we were
correct in that if we adopt H.R. 666 without the gentleman's amendment,
what we are really saying is people can go around and do massive
searches in neighborhoods or anything they want and if they come up
with something, then they can go ahead and prosecute, that there really
would be no reason to ever bother to get a search warrant in the
future.
I have just heard the gentleman from Michigan's amendment being
attacked around here, and I think it is only fair for the gentleman to
have some time to explain it, because I, the way I read it, I have been
reading it and reading it and it looks to me just like the codification
of Leon decision.
Would the gentleman please answer?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that the gentlewoman has
again put her finger on precisely what is in difference over this H.R.
666. Because we have now, and I think the other side will agree, we
have all kinds of exceptions written into the exclusionary rule
already.
{time} 1630
This includes destruction of evidence, imminent danger to law
enforcement officers, stop and frisk laws in automobiles, including
trunks, which the police can stop. We have the fleeing felons
exception. We have the plain view exception, where if we see illegal
evidence or a stash of drugs and they are in plain view, or guns, the
police officer is perfectly permitted to act.
However, what we do not have is an officer using his own objective,
reasonable good faith to determine whether he should do something over
and above these exceptions. Therefore, the gentlewoman is absolutely
correct.
In Leon there was a writ given by the magistrate that turned out to
be subsequently invalid. In that case, we said that the police officer
operated in good faith, and therefore the evidence could be excluded.
However, what they are saying is, let us get rid of any warrants at
all by the magistrate, and let us let the police officers' own
reasonable good faith be the test. In other words, each law officer
would become the judge under this exception, which is nowhere to be
found in Leon.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, the other thing I would like to ask the
gentleman about is, when I was discussing this before, I said ``OK, if
we do not pass the gentleman's amendment, and police officers can go
around and search at will, then if they find something, they are not
worth their pay if they cannot figure out some probable cause or
something to cover it up.''
How do we as individuals then protect ourselves from unreasonable
searches and seizures? Is the gentleman aware of any criminal
prosecution in the United States that has ever gone on against any law
enforcement officer anywhere, for illegally searching someone's home?
Mr. CONYERS. If the gentlewoman will yield again, Mr. Chairman, the
whole idea of us not checking with a magistrate in the beginning and
getting an OK, or using one of the exceptions, we will have then
eviscerated the exclusionary law as it exists, because then there will
not be any need. Every officer can use his own judgment.
Now whether somewhere in some jurisdiction in some State, some police
officer, has been nailed, I cannot tell. All I am saying is, why do we
not correct the problem on the front end, instead of waiting for some
hapless citizen to have to go into court, and maybe years later it will
be determined that the police officer was wrong?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is correct. As I
remember our hearings, we asked some of the prosecutors that showed up,
some of the district attorneys, if they were aware of any cases in the
court of law enforcement officers being prosecuted for illegally
searching and seizing, and they said no, not to their knowledge,
either.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Schroeder was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, the reason I feel so strongly about
this is, the gentleman from Missouri was on the floor talking before
about ATF being able to run through people's homes looking for guns. If
they find nothing, then OK, that is the end of it. If they find
something, then they go after the person.
That is a real invasion of our rights, as our forefathers knew them.
I stand here as a person who the FBI came trooping through my house
over and over with an agent named Timothy Redford.
When I first started running in 1972, we kept having break-in after
break-in after break-in, and we really were terrified. We though they
were trying to maybe kidnap the children, because we could not find
anything that was missing. We could just see that they had broken in,
through the window or through whatever, we had no idea what was going
on. They were breaking into the cars. We saw nothing missing.
Many years later, under the Freedom of Information Act, I found that
the FBI had hired this Timothy Redford to break into our house. The
things that he had gotten at taxpayer expense was the fact that I
belong to the League of Women Voters and I paid dues
there, the fact that I had been a Girl Scout, the fact that my husband
was a lawyer.These were incredible things. There were 50 pages of
incredible revelations, that if he had ever come to my campaign office,
we would have told him. However, the main thing he found was a campaign
button that said ``Pat Schroeder: She wins, we win.'' He thought that
was probably a Communist slogan, so therefore, he thought he had
reasonable cause to go running through my house.
Mr. Chairman, granted, he found nothing illegal. My word, there is
nothing in our house, unless dust kittens are illegal. We have those
that weigh 10 tons. However, beyond that, I do not think there is
anything illegal in my house, but if he had, under this amendment they
could then prosecute. However, in the interim, as a citizen I have no
recourse to that.
I really think one's home is one's castle. What we are doing without
the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is saying
there is a license for law enforcement people to go out and search and
seize on anything, whether it is a campaign button or whether you look
suspicious or whether you happen to live in a neighborhood that they
think has a taint of crime or whatever. If they find something, you bet
they are going to make a good case for why they do it, so why would
they ever get a warrant?
The second point the gentleman from Michigan makes is, the courts
have common sense. Guess what, these guys did not come to town on a
turnip truck. Most of them have been prosecutors or defense lawyers
before they sat on the bench, and they have allowed evidence to be
accepted when it was in
[[Page H1328]] plain view, when you were in hot pursuit, when there
were all sorts of things that would make a reasonable exception.
Therefore, the question is, are we going to tear up the 4th
amendment, or are we going to continue to believe that one's home is
one's castle.
Mr. CONYERS. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, first of all,
the gentlewoman has revealed out of her own experience an absolutely
shocking situation, as a Member of Congress and a distinguished person
in her own State and the country, that this could happen to her.
Mr. Chairman, what about a citizen anywhere? Do Members know what
their remedy would be? They would have to go get a lawyer, file a civil
suit. They obviously are going to have to pay for it. It would be a
long, protracted piece of litigation, and there are very, very few
people that would have the well of the House of Representatives to make
clear the kind of horror stories that could occur.
The average citizen is, in effect, without remedy if H.R. 666 would
be applied, because this is what is happening without it. What this
bill would do would be make it legal and permissible for an officer
then to come before the court and say ``I used objectively reasonable
good faith in trying to determine that we should break into the
Schroeder house because we thought we might find something.''
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I totally agree
with the gentleman. I think one of the things that happens here is
everybody sits around and says ``This could not happen to me.'' I must
say, it was a very shocking day when I found out many years later what
was happening. It can happen to anybody.
Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely nothing that says that times do not
change or people cannot draw all sorts of deductions.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] had a very interesting dialog
during the hearing with one of the witnesses talking about if they
stopped his car and searched it on 395 and found nothing, did he have a
recourse. The answer is no. That is why this amendment is so important.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the committee bill does
not validate searches and seizures that are made in bad faith. The
court will make that determination.
It seems to me under the scenario the gentlewoman just recited, she
would have a great lawsuit. She is a lawyer, and her husband is a
lawyer. I am sure they know lots of lawyers. They must consort with
lawyers. I cannot imagine why a good, healthy lawsuit did not ensue.
Police are sued every day. If they intrude, if they trespass, they have
no more rights than anybody else.
However, Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is a good faith
arrest. I can conceive of a situation where two men are on the street
with a policeman nearby and one of them pulls a gun. What he is doing
is showing his friend his gun that he just bought, but the policeman
thinks this is a holdup, jumps the guy with the gun, and in searching
him, finds cocaine in his pocket.
Mr. Chairman, under the committee bill, that cocaine would be
admissible in a trial. Under the exclusionary rule, it would not. Who
is penalized by the exclusionary rule as it presently is employed? The
people. The people are victimized, nobody else, just the people.
{time} 1640
The principle of Leon is to be distinguished from the terms of Leon.
Leon stands for the principle that there is nothing sacred about the
exclusionary rule and if the law enforcement officer made a good faith
effort to make a reasonable search and seizure, to be determined by an
objectively reasonable standard, then the evidence shall not be
suppressed.
Yes, it tilts toward the public, it tilts toward the victims of
crime. It no longer tilts toward the accused. But what is more unjust
than suppressing evidence that should lead to a conviction of a serious
crime because of some technical difficulty? We are addressing that.
Any time they invade the gentlewoman's house again, I would like that
case, and I would do it pro bono for the gentlewoman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. May I reacquaint the gentleman, because he is a
distinguished member and chair of the committee, of the United States
versus Watson, in which it has been held as inviolate law that arrests
in public areas where there is probable cause does not require any
warrant whatsoever.
Mr. HYDE. The key words are ``probable cause.''
Mr. CONYERS. When a person pulls a gun in the presence of a law
enforcement officer, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde],
he does not have to go to a magistrate to determine whether he can
arrest him. He is also in imminent danger of his life, in addition.
That is two requirements.
Mr. HYDE. Let us say he is hugging his wife and the policeman thinks
that sexual harassment is going on in front of him. Incident to
arresting or halting that, he discovers narcotics. I want that to go
into evidence. You want it suppressed.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Is there any question but that pursuant to the lawful
arrest and a search when you find evidence, when there is probable
cause for the arrest, the search incident to the arrest, the evidence
produced of another crime is admissible? I would like to know the case
that excludes that evidence. If it is a search incidental to a lawful
arrest, it is admissible. We do not need this bill for that.
Mr. HYDE. It would not be a lawful arrest if no crime were being
committed and no crime was being committed in exhibiting the gun to his
friend. There was no crime.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I do not quite understand. You can have a lawful
arrest and then defend yourself. But it would be a reasonably lawful
arrest, and then the person could present what was really happening. It
is not like you can only arrest a person unless it is 100 percent proof
in court, and under a lawful arrest, you are allowed to do a lawful
search.
Mr. HYDE. But there could be an unlawful arrest, however, but made in
good faith, under misapprehension of the facts, misapprehension even of
the law. But if it is made in good faith as determined by the court
under an objectively reasonable standard, then we have reached a
crossroads. You want the evidence suppressed. We want the evidence
admitted.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman would yield further, I still cannot
figure out what an unlawful arrest would be unless you just saw someone
walking down the street and arrested them.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, when the court originally came down with the
exclusionary rule, it recognized that this is not a good rule in some
abstract sense. It is forcing the exclusion of evidence which was
seized which could show that an individual may have committed a crime.
But they went through a whole process of pointing out that without this
kind of rule, there was no other effective deterrent to unlawful
searches and seizures, there was no other effective way of protecting
an individual's fourth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and
against unlawful searches and seizures.
If the proponents of this bill and the opponents of the Conyers
amendment would propose a series or any remedy which was effective in
protecting an individual and giving him some recourse against unlawful
searches and seizures which would provide the kind of deterrent that
would make those fourth amendment rights meaningful, I think everybody
in this House would agree in a second to get rid of the exclusionary
rule because of the problems with the exclusionary rule. But when the
gentleman from Illinois talks about a lawsuit against the police, the
evidence is
[[Page H1329]] replete that for all kinds of reasons, the absence of
demonstrating monetary damages, the time it takes, the difficulty in
establishing any proof, civil remedies in the traditional courts
against a policeman for an unlawful search are not effective. They are
not a deterrent.
Surely within the context of discipline, statutory kinds of remedies,
you might want to explore the possibility of providing an alternative
that provides that kind of effective deterrent. But I have never heard
the proponents of doing away with the exclusionary rule takes any
serious time to try and create more effective remedies that would
constitute that deterrence.
That was the very heart of what the court said when they came down
with the exclusionary rule. In effect they said, ``We don't like it but
we don't know how to provide a meaningful deterrent against unlawful
searches and seizures without that rule.''
I suggest that if people would get together and try to come up with
those effective remedies, there would be a much better approach towards
doing this then keeping the exclusionary rule.
But so far no one who wants to do away with it comes up with
effective alternatives. I think it is a big mistake.
I also want to make one other point. The difference between objective
and subjective. I am happy to see the committee report spent some time
clarifying the objective standard. But the fact is when you talk about
what a police officer thought at the time, I would suggest these may be
words but it may not have any real meaning. In the end, you may really
be giving to the police officer the final decision on whether or not he
thought that search was in good faith, and we will slide very quickly
to the intent to provide an objective standard to the reality in the
courtroom of a subjective standard which rewards a lack of knowledge
about search and seizure law, it promotes and encourages not knowing
the specifics of what is permitted and what is not permitted. I do not
think it is a healthy standard to give real meaning to the fourth
amendment protections.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from California for his discourse,
because what he has revealed is this: We have almost a dozen exceptions
that come to mind, including the one by the chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary who was not aware of the fact that a law officer does
not have to go get a warrant or see a magistrate if someone in public
pulls a gun out. That has been tested and is hard law.
But when we take the Leon case and all of the exceptions: stop and
frisk, the fleeing felons, hot pursuit, plain view, good faith, arrests
in public areas, what on Earth else do they want to be excluded from an
exclusionary rule that would lead them not to support codifying Leon as
this amendment of mine does, what other exceptions are they looking
for?
What they are doing is only one thing in my judgment: Transferring
the test of reasonable good faith from the magistrate to the police
officer. That is the one limit that I cannot go to because it in effect
eviscerates whatever else is left of the exclusionary rule.
Mr. BERMAN. If I may reclaim my time, I agree, and it does so without
providing any effective alternative to protect that individual's fourth
amendment rights.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to accomplish two purposes: First to
congratulate the gentleman from Michigan for bringing the amendment to
the floor, and then to announce that I will oppose that amendment.
Why do I congratulate him? It appears that the gentleman from
Michigan is for the first time since I have been in the Congress
espousing a return at least to sanity in the warrant search and seizure
realm of the law enforcement and agrees through the proposition of his
amendment that a good faith exception shall exist in the warrant
arrest. That is a great departure from all that we have heard for 12
years in this Chamber, particularly from the colleagues of the
gentleman from Michigan. But I congratulate him on doing that. Because
we have come a long way, baby, if indeed you come and plead with the
House to pass an amendment that would provide a good faith exception to
a warrant arrest.
{time} 1650
I am exorbitantly pleased at the gentleman's gesture, but at the same
time, I want to tell the gentleman the second part and he may not want
me to yield. I oppose the amendment because it goes against the purpose
of the main bill, namely, to extend that good faith exception, that
trust that we want to reside in the law enforcement officer when he
acts in good faith in warrantless situations. We know that in several
jurisdictions the warrantless good faith exception has already been
installed in the intermediary Federal courts, and so, if we adopt the
amendment of the gentleman, we would be, in effect, taking a step
backwards from the upward march of the good faith exception in the
warrantless situations, which has already been blessed by some of the
intermediary Federal courts.
Mr. Chairman, nothing infuriates the public more than the spectacle
of a criminal standing before the judge, facing his prosecutors and
learning right there in open court that his case, where he was caught
red-handed in a burglary, red-handed in an assault, red-handed in some
heinous crime, to find that the judge dismisses his case right there in
open court for the sake of a technicality that we have seen over and
over and over again. That infuriates the American public in itself, and
then doubles the fury when we see that criminal walking out of court,
in effect literally and figuratively laughing at the judge, laughing at
the prosecutor, laughing at the witnesses who testified against him,
laughing at the system of justice, and perhaps encouraging him to
commit the same kind of offense later, knowing, sophisticated criminal
that he might be, that he can escape justice on a technicality.
What we are about here today is to put some fear of God in that
criminal, and remove the technical release from the prison of the
hardened criminal and to allow our law enforcement community in whom we
have faith to bring about a sense of safety in the streets in a good
faith exception to the exclusionary rule. That is not too much to ask.
Let us defeat the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. Having said that, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I am always pleased to
receive congratulations from my colleague from Pennsylvania with whom I
have worked on these matters across the years.
May I remind the gentleman that intermediate court decisions are
secondary at best to Supreme Court decisions on this subject. And that
anybody that is caught red-handed would be brought within the exclusion
to the exclusionary rule, known in the Supreme Court case as Washington
versus Chrisman, where anything that happens criminally in plain view
vitiates the need for any kind of a warrant.
Finally, could the gentleman give me one example where H.R. 666 would
operate in a different way from the amendment that I have before the
gentleman and which is current law?
Mr. GEKAS. Seizing back my time, I will be glad to prepare a white
paper for the gentleman and outline it.
Mr. CONYERS. No; right here on the floor.
Mr. GEKAS. The issue at hand is whether or not we want to extend the
good faith exception to the warrantless arrests. That is the issue.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding.
What the gentleman from Pennsylvania has proved here today is he
cannot tell us why he would change the existing law, which I am
codifying by amendment in the Leon case. He does not have an example,
because we have already given dozens of exceptions to the exclusionary
rule and there is not one he can even make up now on the floor or ever
that would justify what
[[Page H1330]] they are trying to do to the exclusionary rule, and I
thank my friend for yielding to me.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the proposed Conyers amendment seeks to
codify the 1984 Supreme Court decision in United States versus Leon,
where the Court held that the exclusionary rule should not be used to
bar evidence gathered by officers acting in a reasonable reliance on a
search warrant issued by a magistrate but ultimately found to be
improper. Although this amendment in and of itself dilutes the
exclusionary rule, I support it for it does far less damage to fourth
amendment rights than the bill before us and does not go further than
what is already current Supreme Court case law.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill is a radical
departure from established precedent and would radically extend the
permissibility of warrantless searches. It would allow evidence
gathered from warrantless searches to be admitted. Indeed, the Leon
court explicitly states that it strongly prefers searches with warrants
to warrantless searches, because the process of obtaining a warrant,
that process by itself provides safeguards against improper searches.
Mr. Chairman, the fourth amendment allows the State to breach the
individual's right to privacy only when the amendment's rules are
followed.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the fourth amendment protects
the individual's legitimate expectation of privacy--``the right to be
let alone--the most comprehensive right and the right most valued by
civilized man.''
The heart of the fourth amendment is the issuance of a warrant based
on probable cause. In obtaining a warrant the police officer
goes before a magistrate and shows that the totality of the
circumstances indicate that there is evidence of a crime, in effect,
that he has probable cause. The cost of conducting constitutional
searches is not high. The process of obtaining a warrant is not
cumbersome for police. It has been shown that a magistrate will take an
average of 2 minutes and 45 seconds to approve a search warrant. The
vast majority--over 90 percent--of warrant applications are approved.
Police officers can even obtain a warrant over the telephone.
Critics of the exclusionary rule exaggerate its practical
significance in the disposition of cases. They talk vaguely of enormous
numbers of criminals walking because evidence either was or probably
will be excluded. This argument is simply not supported by responsible
statistical studies. Adherence to the fourth amendment and use of the
exclusionary rule does not result in large numbers of criminals being
set free. For example, a study by the Comptroller General's office
found that suppression motions were granted in only 1.3 percent of
Federal cases.
The leading commentator on search and seizure law has found that,
. . . the most careful and balanced assessment of all
available empirical evidence shows that . . . the cumulative
loss in felony cases because of prosecutor screening, police
releases and court dismissals attributable to the acquisition
of evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment is from 0.6%
to 2.35%. (W. LaFave, ``The Seductive Call of Expedience:
U.S. v. Leon, Its Rationale and Ramifications,'', 1984 Ill.
L. Rev. 895, 913.
Historically, searches without warrants were judged unreasonable and
illegal. Only under certain tightly defined circumstances were
warrantless searches considered legal. Today, the basic rule holds.
Warrantless searches are allowed only in the unusual circumstances, as
the ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, has indicated.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 66 would allow so called good faith warrantless
searches. This would mean the demise of the warrant process, and its
attendant protection. Instead of a warrant issued upon probable cause,
we would have good faith. The bill would mean that good police practice
would be discouraged. It would be unnecessary for police officers to
prepare an affidavit requesting a warrant from a neutral magistrate.
The determination of whether probable cause exists would no longer be
made before the search, as I believe is consistent with the letter and
spirit of the fourth amendment. There would be after-the-fact
determination of whether or not the police officers acted in so-called
good faith.
There is no substitute, Mr. Chairman, for the fourth amendment. We
know police officers will always be able to make up after-the-fact
excuses for the search. The fourth amendment protects the innocent
public from illegal searches. Police should not conduct illegal
searches, they should not conduct illegal arrests. The exclusionary
rule removes the incentives that they would have for such law breaking.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Conyers amendment maintains a balance
to protect innocent people from illegal searches, and I urge the House
to adopt it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this exclusionary rule,
this move to enact H.R. 666. Mr. Chairman, as I sat in my office and
listened to the debate, I must tell Members of this body that I became
more terrified about this piece of legislation than I have been about
any legislation that I have been asked to consider as a Member of this
body since I was elected to this office representing the First
Congressional District of Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am the only Member of this body to
ever have been victimized by illegal search and seizure by a member of
the police force in this Nation, the city of Chicago police force.
A little over 25 years ago, Mr. Chairman, there was an illegal search
and seizure conducted by the Chicago Police Department within the city
of Chicago.
{time} 1700
As a result of that illegal search and seizure, admittedly illegal
search and seizure by the Chicago Police Department, two individuals
were killed, seven individuals were wounded. They also, the survivors
of that particular raid in the city of Chicago, had the right to sue.
They did sue. The county of Cook settled out of court, but it did not
bring life back to the two individuals who were killed. That was
December 4, 1969.
December 5, 1969, Mr. Chairman, my apartment was also raided
illegally, supposedly in search of guns. They did not come with a
warrant. They came with weapons pulled, weapons blazing. They shot my
door down.
Fortunately I was not at the apartment. My family was not at the
apartment at that time. They entered my apartment, did not find any
weapons, but yet and still, they justified it, Mr. Chairman, Members of
this body, by saying that they, in fact, did find contraband in my
apartment; they did find a bag of what they identified at the time, a
bag of marijuana in my apartment.
Mr. Chairman, upon further research and upon actions by my attorneys
at the time, my attorneys took them to court, and in court they
indicated that that bag of marijuana where they had shot my door down,
guns blazing, threatening; had I been there, I would have been killed
also, and my family would have been killed, wiped out totally, they
found that that bag they called marijuana was nothing more than bird
seed.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this body, there is no such thing as giving
the police force exclusionary rights. Those individuals who are
advocates of this particular measure, they can rush to judgment, they
can rush to enacting this piece of legislation simply because of the
fact that it might look good on their resume to their voters in their
districts, it might sound good in terms of being politically correct,
and that they are tougher than tough in regards to enforcing the laws
of this Nation. It might sound like they are friends of the police
departments, and we all understand that the police departments are
under siege right now from a number of sources throughout the Nation.
But, Mr. Chairman, in human context, in human terms, this legislation
in more instances than not would mean life and death for certain
individuals, individuals who have been ostracized, cast aside by law
enforcement officers and by the status quo.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush] has
expired.
(At the request of Mr. Conyers and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rush was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I must say to you that although at the time,
25 or more years ago, a little over 25 years ago, back in the city of
Chicago we felt
[[Page H1331]] as though we had no friends. We felt as though the
power of this Nation was coming down on our backs as young men who
felt, young men and young women, who felt that we wanted to challenge
the status quo.
I must say that it was Members of this body led by the distinguished
gentlemen from Michigan who did come into Chicago, the Congressional
Black Caucus, and put the skids, put the skids on the type of police
atrocities and police violations of the law and police murder that was
occurring in the city of Chicago, put the skids on that. They came in,
and they conducted a hearing, and because they did focus national
attention on what was happening in Chicago, police forces there backed
up and subsequently were found, they admitted, that they had no legal
grounds to murder two individuals, and so they had no legal grounds to
come into my apartment to seize and to search and seize in my apartment
and to charge me with a felony of which it was baseless. It was
groundless. It was only an excuse, only an excuse, Mr. Chairman, to
take my life away.
I must tell you that today that is the issue that is at stake for
many, many Americans, whether or not we are going to have police forces
throughout this Nation, any police force, given the arbitrary power for
political reasons to invade someone's privacy, to invade their homes
under the guise of arbitrary decisions that they want to make.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RUSH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I want to commend the gentleman, because it takes a
great deal of courage to go back into the past in very terrible times
that were going on in Chicago, the Fred Hampton massacre and others,
yourself who fought a very noble fight.
But is not it true that in cities like Chicago the police can go to a
magistrate at any point 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; they are on
duty, that for any reason whatsoever that they needed to go into your
apartment or anybody else's, they could get a search warrant and if
they had a reason, if they did not have a search warrant, they have all
of these other exceptions that could have been used, and none of them
apply to you?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush] has
again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Conyers and by unanimous consent, Mr. Rush was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's inquiry is absolutely
correct. Right now in the city of Chicago, the police are authorized to
go to any judge, be they a sitting judge or be they any other type of
judge, they can go to a judge on a 24-hour basis, any judge within the
city of Chicago, any judge within the county of Cook, any Federal
magistrate. They can go to any judge and get a warrant to enter into
anyone's home to search anyone's home or vehicle or whatever, their
private possessions. They do have that authority at this moment in
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138,
noes 291, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 98]
AYES--138
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--291
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--5
Allard
Frost
Gephardt
Hunter
Yates
{time} 1726
On this bill:
Mr. Gephardt for, with Mr. Allard against.
Messrs. COSTELLO, BARCIA, and DICKEY changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. TORRES and Mr. GONZALEZ changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
[[Page H1332]] amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 2,
line 13, strike all after the word ``States,'' and insert the
following:
``provided that the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this
amendment would simply have the effect of providing that evidence could
be admitted into court after a search and seizure providing that the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched.
{time} 1730
If this language sounds familiar to the Members of this body, it is
the exact language of the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I want to start by thanking my cosponsors of this amendment, Mr.
DeFazio and Mr. Fields, for jointly sponsoring this. We believe in the
Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, after I addressed the body in general debate and after
I addressed the body on the balanced budget amendment, several of my
colleagues have asked me why I get so excited about the Constitution of
the United States.
They ask me, ``Why are you so conservative when it comes to the
Constitution of the United States?''
I respond to them that we all bring our different perspectives to
this body. We all bring our different histories to this body. We heard
an eloquent example of this during the last debate from the gentleman
from Chicago [Mr. Rush].
My history is this: I learned the Constitution from a constitutional
specialist, Robert Bork. My friends on the other side may understand
that. They know him well, a very conservative gentleman. I also studied
under Professor Emerson.
These two gentleman were at opposite ends of the spectrum. But one
thing they believed vigorously in was the Constitution of the United
States. And when I started practicing law, it was not surprising that
the first jury trial that I handled called into question the first
amendment provisions, because I was called upon to represent the
interests of a group of native Americans who had been demonstrating
against attending school with black kids. And despite the fact that I
disagreed with them in what they were demonstrating about, I thought
they had a right to demonstrate and to the protection of their first
amendment rights.
Later my law firm was called upon to represent the Ku Klux Klan when
they were demonstrating, and we also protected their rights to
demonstrate under the first amendment, despite the fact that we
disagreed with what they were demonstrating about.
So my commitment to the Constitution does not have anything to do
with whether I agree with somebody or disagree with somebody. My
commitment is to defend the Constitution. And when I took the oath in
this body, my commitment to that proposition continued.
It is a conservative philosophy which I espouse. I love the
Constitution of the United States. Even when it is not convenient for
me to love it, I still think it needs to be defended and protected,
contrary to some of my colleagues, apparently, in this body.
For over 205 years now we have had this sacred language in the fourth
amendment of the Constitution. It says that people ought to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Today my colleagues come in with new language,
trying to add some other language that they would have the Supreme
Court go back and interpret for 200 more years.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Wise and by unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of
North Carolina was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that this
bill is going to generate 200-plus more years of litigation, because
the language justifying an objectively reasonable belief is no more
precise than the language of the fourth amendment of the Constitution
which exists currently.
My colleagues on the Republican side would have us believe that they
can wave a magic wand and craft some language that is so clear, so
crystal clear, that there will not be any litigation about it. But, my
friends, the crafters of our Constitution drafted this language, and I
would submit to you that my colleagues on the other side are no smarter
than the drafters of the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can fight to uphold the constitutional
provisions. I do not know anybody in this body who can vote against
this basic amendment. All it does is say we are going back to the
fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I hope anybody who will vote
against this amendment will go home and look their constituents in the
eye and say, ``I voted against the fourth amendment.''
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think everybody here needs to understand that though
the gentleman may be acting quite in good faith, and I know he believes
sincerely what he is doing, Members need to understand that this
amendment guts the bill as it now is written altogether. While the
gentleman is offering a provision of the Constitutional language that
clearly is already there, and we might all want to say, ``Hooray, we
are going to vote for that,'' what we have to realize is the gentleman
is saying we are going to put it in a place in this bill that comes
very early in the bill, after about three lines, and then strike the
entire rest of the bill, H.R. 666, so there will be no good-faith
exception for any purpose in this bill when it is done. All we will be
doing is reproducing in bill form the fourth amendment to the
Constitution.
In essence, it is another way of voting against this bill. If you
want to vote the bill down, it is another way to proceed to do that.
It is demeaning, in my judgment, to the Constitution in the second
order of things to go out and reproduce the Constitution or 1 of the 10
amendments in the Bill of Rights as a statute. It is in the most
sacrosanct document we have. It is in our Constitution. I do not think
it calls for any reproduction to ratify our belief in the Constitution
in some statutory form.
So really there are two reasons to vote against this: If you believe,
as I do very strongly, in wanting to reaffirm an exception to the
exclusionary rule and expand that exception, which this bill does, to
allow us to get more evidence in in search and seizure cases, and get
more convictions and get away from technicalities letting people who
have committed crimes off the hook, then you need to vote against this
amendment.
{time} 1740
Because the amendment just does away with that possibility
altogether. And by perhaps the interpretation somebody could place on
it, it does not just do away with an expansion of that good faith rule,
it is quite possible the Supreme Court would come in and say, ``aha,
Congress has spoken and we have to do away with the good faith
exception we have already carved out for cases where there are search
warrants'' because we are presumably enacting this provision of the
Constitution in conjunction with the debate we are having today and
with language that talks about search and seizure evidence being
admissible or not.
So I would submit to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that
this is a worse amendment than the preceding amendment we just voted
down. This amendment goes further and potentially can destroy the
entire concept of any exceptions to an exclusionary rule whatsoever. In
other words, it could go all the way back and say, look, if there
[[Page H1333]] has been any illegal search and seizure, even if done
in good faith with a search warrant, it is out the window. Forget the
Leon case. Forget any of those other cases.
I would urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. It is offered, I
know, in good faith, but it turns out to be very mischievous, guts this
bill and should be defeated.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and would respond to
the previous speaker before me on the floor. The gentleman finds that
somehow by substituting the exact wording of the fourth amendment to
the Constitution, wording which the Supreme Court in its wisdom has
interpreted and finds allows exceptions in cases of good faith with
searches which involve warrants, the gentleman feels that by restating
the fourth amendment that somehow we would overturn that judgment of
the Supreme Court. That is an absurd argument.
The Supreme Court has rendered an opinion on these words previously
and the Supreme Court has found a limited good faith exception in cases
where warrants exist.
But what the other side would do here today is trash the fourth
amendment to the Constitution by saying, no, even though the courts
have not found exceptions in cases where there are warrantless
searches, we feel that should happen. Or one gentleman mentioned some
lower courts have found in some limited cases that warrantless searches
might be acceptable. We have already talked at great length on this
floor about where exceptions exist and have great precedent, and
apparently there are perhaps some others coming up through the court.
Let the Supreme Court render that judgment on the fourth amendment
which has stood for more than 200 years.
Now, I perhaps suffer a disadvantage in this debate. I am not one of
the many attorneys in the House of Representatives, but then again,
nonattorneys outnumber attorneys still in this country, perhaps for a
little while longer. Many of us are attached to the Bill of Rights in
the Constitution, particularly the fourth amendment. And I believe that
this goes to the issue of us being secure in our homes.
This is not about a drug deal on the street. It is not about two
people hugging with a gun sticking out of their pocket or drugs in the
park. It is not about that at all. It is whether or not someone, an
officer of the law, has to spend 2 to 3 minutes on the telephone
convincing a magistrate that they have probable cause before they kick
down someone's door. I do not think that 2 or 3 minutes is an
inconvenience. They already have many exceptions, when there is
imminent threat, many exceptions when there is a crime in progress,
many exceptions when they have a warrant.
But warrantless searches, broadly construed, are a threat to the
security of the people of this country. And they certainly are a threat
to the continued sanctity of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
So restating that amendment here in this law does not threaten the
precedents and the exceptions that have been taken previously.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman is really saying that without the seven
exceptions created by the Supreme Court, the Constitution still
requires that one gets a warrant.
Mr. DeFAZIO. That is correct.
Mr. CONYERS. And what that means then is that the gentleman's bill
itself will soon be rendered unconstitutional. And I think that this
proposal, which repeats the fourth amendment, will likely stand.
Mr. DeFAZIO. And it would certainly reinforce the exceptions, the
seven exceptions already created by the Supreme Court and allow any
other exceptions to be heard upon their merits, particularly these
lower cases we heard vaguely referred to earlier.
What we would not do is sanctify warrantless searches. I do not
believe, as a layperson, in a body and before these many esteemed
lawyers, that my constituents want to see this country move toward a
system of warrantless searches. That is what this legislation before us
would do.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And if this amendment
fails, to vote against 666.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it is an
amendment that makes a lot of sense and is an amendment that this body
should adopt.
Let me give Members a couple reasons why. The gentleman to my right
mentioned that there were no constitutional problems with this bill as
it is. But let me just read one portion of the bill that I find a very
significant constitutional flaw with.
And that is on line 8, it starts by saying:
Evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or
seizure shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of
the United States on the ground that the search or seizure
was in violation of the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
What this bill actually would do, this bill would basically make the
fourth amendment of the Constitution moot. And I do not think that this
body, first of all, has the legal responsibility nor the right to
violate the Constitution by making an amendment of the Constitution
moot. So, therefore, I think the bill in itself is unconstitutional,
not to mention unconscionable.
We talk about this bill being a bill to deal with the criminals. The
biggest criminal act is the passage of this piece of legislation.
Because what we are doing to the poor citizen on the street, we are
telling them that they have less rights. They cannot have a fourth
amendment to the Constitution. They cannot have that protection, if a
law enforcement officer chooses to knock their door down or to pull
them on the side and search their belongings, go into their home and
search their belongings without a warrant. I think that is simply
unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional. So I would urge the
Members of this body to actually look at the Constitution before we
pass this piece of legislation.
I mean, I am all for a contract for America, but I do not think a
contract ought to be to dismantle the Constitution of the United States
of America. So if we support the Constitution, the fourth amendment of
the Constitution, and all of us as Members of this body, when we
arrived here in January, all of us, each and every last one of us,
raised our right hand and we said in no uncertain terms that we were
going to abide by the laws of the United States of America, which
includes the Constitution of the United States of
America, so to come here and to undo the fourth amendment of the
Constitution by taking the rights away from a citizen and say, under
the guise that we are doing something about crime and we are being
tough on crime, when some poor soul is sitting at home tonight, if the
passage of this legislation, if this legislation passes tonight, some
soul in the future sitting at his house, inside of his home, watching
his television, some Rambo cop can bust down his door, search his
belongings, go through all of his belongings and say that they have a
constitutional right to do so because of this legislation, I think that
is unconscionable.I would urge the Members of this body to seriously
look at what we are about to do. I do not think there is any member in
this Hall that would want to pass a law that would take away a Member's
constitutional rights, fourth amendment constitutional rights. And that
is exactly what this bill would do.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the procedure here, because
as I read this amendment, this is the fourth amendment to the
Constitution. We are being asked, as Members of the House, do we or do
we not support the fourth amendment. And I have taken this well before
saying, I really thought that H.R. 666 repealed it, and here is a
chance for us to now say, we are not repealing it, as the gentleman
from Louisiana just said.
My real question is, can any Member vote against this? Because we are
all sworn to uphold the Constitution. The fourth amendment is part of
the Constitution.
{time} 1750
I think parliamentary-wise, it is a very interesting question as to
what
[[Page H1334]] would happen if Members vote directly against a part of
the Constitution. I do not think we have ever had that on the floor
before, as long as I have been here.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the esteemed ranking Member, is this
not absolutely the entire fourth amendment, all jot and tittle? This is
it, is that correct?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth amendment to the
Constitution. I have never remembered voting on it, Mr. Chairman, and
what happens here is that the reason that he had to replace it in its
entirety is that there is a great likelihood that the McCollum bill, as
it is written, will subsequently be found unconstitutional itself, so
we not only have our obligation to the Constitution, but we fortunately
had this replaced from a provision I think is unconstitutional, and
predict it will never stand court muster. Therefore, I support the
gentleman as well.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Let me ask the gentleman, too, Mr. Chairman, from his
history, does the gentleman have any idea what happens if a Member of
Congress takes the well and at the beginning of each session, pledges
to uphold the Constitution? Does anyone know what happens if they do
not vote to uphold the fourth amendment? What will happen if people
vote against it?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, this
is the 104th Congress. The question has never arisen before. Let us all
stay tuned.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope everybody votes to
uphold the Constitution. I think we have seen an awful lot of
silliness, but one of the things every American says is their home is
their castle, and your home is not your castle if anybody can come
knock down the door any time they want without a warrant. This is one
of the premises that our forefathers and foremothers felt very strongly
about.
Mr. Chairman, I think if we do not stand for this, we do not stand
for anything. The people who sent us here and thought we were sworn to
uphold the Constitution, if we vote against this, Mr. Chairman, they
are going to really wonder. They are going to really wonder, and I
would not blame them at all if they wanted their money back for the
salaries of the people that maybe had their fingers crossed when they
took that oath. Mine were not.
Mr. Chairman, I will probably vote for this amendment, and I think
the gentleman from North Carolina is to be complimented in reminding us
all, let us stop this silliness with the contract and realize our real
contract is the Constitution of the United States, that every Member of
this body is pledged to uphold.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] for reminding us
of that.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to echo what I have heard from the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and the distinguished gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. I, too, remember the oath that the Members
of this body took when we were sworn into this office.
I just went up to the Clerk's desk and asked the Clerk to allow me to
refresh my recollection. We said:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, does not do that. In fact, in order to save
this body in terms of our integrity, we must support the Watt
amendment, because the Watt amendment reaffirms the fourth amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. To vote against the Watt amendment is to vote
against the fourth amendment to the Constitution. To vote against the
Constitution is to violate the oath of office that each and every
Member of this body took to uphold, to support, and defend that
Constitution.
As the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] so eloquently
stated, our contract is the Constitution of the United States. Let us
have a contract with and for America, not a contract on America.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I feel a chill in the air this afternoon. I think we
are about to see a very dark day in history of the United States of
America, the beginning of the police state. I submit that historians
looking back will write that America's liberty began to erode in 1995
when they undertook to substitute language for the fourth amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think one of the great fears that the science fiction
writers write about is the black-clad storm troopers that break through
your door, seizing whatever they might, seizing your personal items.
That is the modern-day version of what our forefathers in the fourth
amendment were afraid of.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I believe if the majority prevails we are about
to undertake the beginning of that scenario.
That is not a question of whether we trust police officers. As an
attorney, I represented police officers and I know them to be hard-
working, dedicated public servants, but I also know from their own
mouths that they are not above making conscious mistakes. I also know
that there are instances in which they go beyond the bounds of the law.
My statement is not to indict police officers, Mr. Chairman, I am
here to commend them, but rather to say that the protections contained
in the fourth amendment were designed to protect the most precious
group of people in this society, more precious even than police
officers; that is, the U.S. citizenry.
Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman, today, that this could be a very dark
day in the history of the United States when we suspend the rights so
dearly protected in the fourth amendment, and in its place allow
individuals to state what they thought they were doing, what they
wanted to do, what they intended to do, rather than provide what the
Constitution provides, that the people shall be secure, secure in their
person.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Watt amendment.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, two things I think we should point out. One is that we
are not talking about here a rule that goes back to the foundation of
the Constitution. In fact, as I understand it, it first appeared in
1914, and then the exception, good faith exception, appeared in 1984,
so we are not talking about the founding documents.
The second thing I think is important to point out is that we are not
talking about here some sort of an abuse of process. What we are
talking about simply is the ability of police officers and prosecutors
to use material seized in good faith, in this case with a warrantless
search.
I think it makes a whole lot of sense. It makes a whole lot of common
sense to the American people. I do not see any violence being done to
the fourth amendment.
I do, however, see some violence being done every time we would have
some kind of an issue on the floor that we would put up for a vote a
piece in the Constitution. I suppose that means that if we get into a
debate on last year's crime bill, somebody
could have arisen and suggested that we reiterate the words of the
second amendment.It does not really make much sense to go around
reiterating in statute form the words of the Constitution. I am very
happy to affirm those words, because they are very meaningful, but it
really does not have much legal significance to affirm those words by
statute.
That is to demean the Constitution of the United States, because it
is not a statute. It is not amendable here on the floor of this House,
but only by the people of this country after two-thirds vote here and
three-fourths of the States ratify it.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just simply wanted to
inquire of the gentleman from South Carolina whether he agreed with
the
[[Page H1335]] gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that this
amendment guts the bill by putting in the provisions of the fourth
amendment, which is the Constitution.
Is it the gentleman's opinion that, as the gentleman from Florida has
expressed, that it guts the gentleman's bill?
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
would say to the gentleman, I really cannot figure out exactly what the
amendment does, to tell the truth. The legal significance of the
amendment is an absurdity, really. It is from the Constitution. I just
see it as a legal absurdity.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I do not know how this could be an absurdity unless the fourth
amendment itself is an absurdity. The words speak for themselves. They
say exactly what the fourth amendment says.
It seems to me that preserves the Constitution, not denigrates the
bill.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I
would simply say to the gentleman from North Carolina, it just does not
make sense to go around restating in statute form the words of the
Constitution of the United States. It is as though we have to shore up
the Constitution.
I do not see any need here to shore up the Constitution. The
Constitution is the Constitution, regardless of what we do here on the
floor today. We cannot amend it here on the floor. I know, as somebody
involved in the term limit effort, it is hard to amend the Constitution
of the United States.
We do not need to, by simple statute, do something that really has no
legal effect. It is just to repeat the words of the fourth amendment.
{time} 1800
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman
from Florida. I believe he wanted to have some further words about
this.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do want to reiterate what I said
earlier. I do think this does gut the bill. I think it guts it for the
simple reason it strikes out three-quarters of the bill. It takes out
the good faith exception that we tried to put in the bill. It is as
simple as that.
It is not that there is anything wrong with the Constitution or any
of the language that the gentleman is offering. It is that what it does
in the process is just strike after the word ``States'' everything
there that talks about a reasonable and objective standard for making
an exception to the exclusionary rule that will let us get more
evidence in and get more convictions. So that is why I am opposed to
the amendment, and I certainly understand there are Members on the
other side that think somehow this whole exclusionary rule debate is
going to violate the fourth amendment and do away with it. It does no
such thing.
The particular provisions we are proposing today have been in
existence for quite a number of years in two Federal circuits, and I
have never heard anybody come forward and complain that there has been
some unreasonable search and seizure, the police have been abusing this
in those jurisdictions. That covers quite a number of States, 14 or 15
States.
It is just not practical to continue to have two of the circuits on
one path and the rest of the country on another on the rules of
evidence in this country when we need to get more evidence in to get
convictions. These technicalities are killing a lot of our police
officers' efforts and the prosecutors' efforts to get convictions.
I do not see why we should allow an amendment like this one that
would just totally wipe out the bill, and that is what it does.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Inglis] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous consent
Mr. Inglis of South Carolina was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the only way
one could conclude that this guts the bill is to say that the rest of
the bill is somehow inconsistent with the fourth amendment. I am
wondering whether that is what the gentleman from Florida is saying,
because that is the only way I could see the actual language of the
fourth amendment being inconsistent and gutting the rest of the bill,
if the rest of the bill is somehow inconsistent with the fourth
amendment.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time if I
may, before I yield to the gentleman from Florida I would say this is
the only reason it would. I would say to the gentleman from North
Carolina we are making positive progress here and the gentleman simply
goes back to restate law that is actually the constitutional law and,
therefore, he obliterates all of the forward progress. I think that is
fairly obvious as to why this would gut the bill. We are not making any
forward progress.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Inglis] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. McCollum and by unanimous consent Mr. Inglis of
South Carolina was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from North Carolina
over here is making a point about something that is misleading in a
sense. I know he does not intend it to be. The truth of the matter is,
all of us believe in the fourth amendment, all of us believe in the
Constitution, and there is nothing that I would not do to embrace it.
If we had a vote out here tomorrow to say Bill McCollum, vote for the
fourth amendment, I would be in there saying I would certainly vote for
it. I cannot imagine anybody who would not vote for it.
But that is not what the gentleman is asking us to do. He is asking
us to wipe out the bill in the process of voting for the Constitution.
It is not inconsistent on our part to say heck, we do not want to do
that. The Constitution stands free and clear in its own right. We do
not disturb it. But we want to modify a rule of court that has been
used for a number of years in certain ways to patrol this
constitutional right. That is all we want to do. We do not want to wipe
out the right, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the debate that we have been hearing on the other side
of the aisle strikes me, frankly, as rather absurd to be arguing that
the only way to protect the fourth amendment, which the gentlemen on
the other side of the aisle claim is their desire and their goal here,
that the only way to do that is to codify it in statute. Really, as the
gentleman from South Carolina said, it demeans the Constitution itself
by taking something that is the highest law of the land, codified in
the Constitution itself, and we have to put it into statute in order to
give it meaning. That is absurd.
But the debate has reflected on something that is important, and that
is language in the fourth amendment. Lost in a lot of this debate here
is the notion that the fourth amendment contemplated that there would
be searches and seizures. It was never the intent of our Framers that
there would not be searches and seizures conducted in support of law
enforcement and to protect the public welfare. It was contemplated that
there would be warrantless searches and seizures subject to the
standard of reasonableness, and that is precisely what this proposal in
H.R. 666 does. It says that that standard of reasonableness is codified
in the Constitution itself and shall apply, shall apply.
What this proposal in H.R. 666 would do, which I support, and which
the amendment proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina would undo,
is to provide a standard of reasonableness explicitly set forth in
statute to give further meaning, to give further focus, to the fourth
amendment of the Constitution of the United States. That is what the
people have a right to expect under their Constitution, and to play
these games of smoke and mirrors by saying the only way we can address
[[Page H1336]] this problem is by gutting H.R. 666 and taking the
amendment that we already have in the Constitution and codifying it,
does a disservice to the debate which we have been trying to have here
today.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add a note of caution to all of those
who are watching this debate and hope that throughout this land that
Americans are going to watch very carefully how these votes get cast on
this amendment, because what is in jeopardy here and now in this
Congress is the very fabric and moral standing of our land written into
the Constitution. That is the notion that Members of the U.S. Congress
could not stand enthusiastically and embrace the fourth amendment, that
they could not embrace the amendment offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina, who simply asserts the wording of our Constitution
which says we grapple with this issue about illegal searches, that we
could be guided by that language, and I think that it sends a wake-up
call to all of America.
I heard a Member of the other body say the other day that there have
been in total some 75 amendments offered to the Constitution just since
January 4. We have a group of Members who have come to Washington who
on the one hand profess to support the Constitution, but on the other
hand are trying in a wholesale fashion to change the very makeup of
that Constitution, not just through constitutional amendments, but
through other statutes and other attempts such as the one before us. I
hope that we as Members of the U.S. Congress forget the contract for a
minute and remember our oath to protect and stand in support of the
Constitution and support the Watt amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, they are quoting the sanctity of the Constitution, and
I was just looking through the Bible at Revelations. I would like to
quote:
[13] And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten
horns and seven heads, with ten diadems upon its horns and a
blasphemous name upon its heads. And the beast that I saw was
like a leopard, its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth
was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power
and his throne and great authority. One of its heads seemed
to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and
the whole earth followed the beast with wonder. Men worshiped
the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and
they worshiped the beast, saying, ``Who is like the beast,
and who can fight against it?''
And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and
blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority
for forty-two months;
{time} 1810
Skipping over,
It works great signs, even making fire come down from
Heaven to earth in the sight of men; and by the signs which
it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast, it
deceives those who dwell on earth, bidding them make an image
for the beast which was wounded by the sword and yet lived;
and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast
so that the image of that beast should even speak, and to
cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to
be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich
and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand
or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has
the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its
name. This calls for wisdom: Let him who has understanding
reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its
number is 666.
Mr. Speaker, I think this says it more than anybody else. It limits
the authority to 42 months which is approximately 2 years, and the
beast is named 666, and I say this is the beast we are dealing with
today.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Exclusionary Rule
Reform Act and support the Watt amendment. I talked to cops about what
do we do on crime. My brother was a police officer, and I tell you that
this is not on their minds. It is not the exclusionary rule or giving
the Miranda warning.
What is on their minds is guns, police-killing bullets, and assault
weapons.
If we want to spend that time in this House making life safer and
easier for cops, we should continue the work we have done to take more
weapons off our streets.
There are few things that we do in Washington that have worked so
well as the exclusionary rule. It has passed the test of time for eight
decades. Moreover, the Supreme Court has created one good-faith
exception, in cases where an independent magistrate issuing a warrant
has made a mistake, but the court, which is not known as a shrinking
violet when it comes to crimes, has refused to expand exceptions like
this for 10 years.
The exclusionary rule has improved police procedures, making them
constitutional and fair.
This issue is a red herring, and the statistics bear this out. Only
1.37 percent of all evidence is thrown out in Federal cases.
Let us defeat this bill. In addition to being an assault on the
Constitution, this is a waste of time and another gimmick. If I may
again reiterate and re-quote just what the fourth amendment says,
namely, that we are to be protected against unreasonable searches and
seizures, that they shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be
issued but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the person to be
seized or things to be seized.
Mr. Chairman, nothing could be clearer, and to say that a warrantless
search is not in violation of this Constitution is ludicrous.
Let us support the Watt amendment. Let us preserve the right to be
secure in our homes. Let us guarantee all Americans by our
Constitution.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in opposition to the Exclusionary
Rule Reform Act and in support of the Watt amendment.
I am inspired to speak here because I heard one gentleman, the
gentleman from South Carolina, say that we should not be quoting the
Constitution. We would be a lot better off it, instead of reading the
Contract on America in this body every day, that we would simply quote
the Constitution, remind ourselves of what this magnificent document is
all about. It begins, as you know, ``We the people of the United
States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.''
Now, let us understand what was happening at that time and the
history that we should never forget. When the citizens of Great Britain
decided to leave, they left because of oppression and tyranny. They
left because they simply wanted a quality of life that would provide
them with some freedom and justice so that they could feel secure, and
when they left to establish in the new land, they were invaded. They
were imposed upon. They were violated. Their homes were broken into.
Not only were they overtaxed, they were simply mistreated. They could
not pursue justice, freedom and equality.
And they said, ``We are going to establish a Constitution. We are
going to establish in this new land a document that will protect us
from tyranny.''
Now, those of us who are involved in this body who are forever about
the business of exporting democracies around the world, we are
appalled, as we were appalled in South Africa at the fact that people's
homes could be invaded, that whole towns could be torn down, that at
any time of night or day the police could ride into an area, beat the
people, dismantle their homes, literally invade them.
This Constitution protected us from this kind of invasion and
violation. This document that set out to establish freedom, justice and
equality, perfected by the Bill of Rights and the amendments, the first
10 amendments to the Constitution, simply said we will not allow people
to be violated in the fashion that they were violated when they left
their mother country.
These were not blacks. They were not Mexicans. They were basically
people
[[Page H1337]] who had left Great Britain. They kind of all looked
alike.
But let me tell you, it does not matter whether you are black, white,
green or any other color, if you find yourself in a situation where
those who are ruling, those who are in power are so egotistical or so
disrespectful or so unmindful of the fact that we all deserve the right
to be free and they decide to move in your town or in your community a
corrupt police force, corrupt elected officials, if they decide they
are going to walk into your home, they are going to invade your
property, they are going to violate the most precious of that that can
be violated, the sanctity of the home, you allow them to do this when
you mess around with this Constitution this way.
You will see a number of African-Americans on the floor today. You
may wonder, ``Why are so many African-Americans in this Congress so
concerned about this exclusionary rule?'' Well, we were not there when
those who were fleeing the tyranny of Great Gritain were being
violated, but we were there as slaves. We were there when our doors
were kicked down. We were there when children were grabbed away from
their families, when people were sold into slavery, violated, and so we
feel this very deeply. We understand this. We do not want anything to
violate the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
This is not about some game we are playing. This is not about some
political posturing. This is about protection of human and individual
rights for the people, and the Constitution defends that, and it
guarantees that.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This
amendment is not about tampering with the Constitution. We are not
doing that in any way, shape, or form here.
And this is poor legislative procedure to take language that is
already law, consecrated law in our Constitution, and attempt to
substitute it in a bill. All that has the effect of doing is abandoning
to the Supreme Court our responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
Certainly the Supreme Court has that responsibility, and they have a
whole history of cases determining what the fourth amendment means. But
we are entitled to pass legislation so long as it is in compliance with
that Constitution, and this language simply adds to that interpretation
that the Supreme Court already has and creates a good-faith exception
so that criminals do not get off on technicalities.
{time} 1820
All we are saying here is do not allow somebody who is guilty of a
crime to evade conviction because of a police officer who acted in good
faith, and everybody's constitutional right is protected because the
judge will have the discretion and it can be taken up on appeal as
well. The judge will have the discretion to determine whether or not
the individual police officer was acting in good faith. If he finds he
was not, the evidence is excluded. But if he was acting in good faith,
not intentionally depriving anybody of their rights, the evidence
should be brought in and the criminal should be convicted and put in
prison. That is what their bill is about. That is why the amendment
should be defeated and the bill passed.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as Americans we should be devoted to the Bill of
Rights. The Bill of Rights and our respect for the Bill of Rights is
what has kept our country free for over 200 years. The fourth amendment
to our Constitution is part of our precious Bill of Rights. Today in
America we are legitimately worried about crime. As the mother of two
young children I know how much I worry about their safety. I worry that
unless we do the right thing our country will be an even more dangerous
place by the time they are adults.
But even as we worry about crime we cannot worry less about freedom
and the freedom guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. Because of our
concern about crime the operation of the exclusionary rule which
protects the fourth amendment has been increasingly narrowed over the
past years by the Supreme Court. Police can act in emergencies, police
are excused under the Leon ruling when they execute a faulty warrant in
good faith. This lets the police do their job.
But H.R. 666 goes further than that. The fourth amendment is not in
our Constitution to protect the guilty, it is there to protect innocent
regular Americans. It is to prevent the government from coming into
your home whenever they want to. It is to protect the American people
from big government that would intrude on our privacy. H.R. 666, if it
is constitutional, would allow the government to intrude on our privacy
without having an impartial magistrate review the situation. That is
why, as the mother of two little children, I will vote for the fourth
amendment offered by Mr. Watt. I worry about my children's freedoms,
freedom from the fear of crime is something I want for them. But I also
want them to enjoy the freedoms that Americans have always had to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, may I engage the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr.
McCollum?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I would be delighted to.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I would like to know, and I have heard repeated, and I
have to believe that you and others believe that in your bill you do
not intend to violate the Constitution, you certainly do not intend to
give up unconstitutional language being in conflict with the fourth
amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentlewoman is completely correct.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Well, help me understand then. If this language is
inserted would it not go to perfect that very intention that if you do
not intend, anything motivating to annihilate the Constitution
particularly the fourth amendment, why then, although it may be
redundant, why not allow this language to be there that says without
any ambiguity that the fourth amendment is to be upheld? Why not allow
this language to be there?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that language particularly. What
I object to is what would be stricken from the bill by the amendment
that the gentleman, Mr. Watt, has offered. If you look at his
language----
Mrs. CLAYTON. Is he not substituting the fourth amendment?
Mr. McCOLLUM. He is substituting the fourth amendment for the
language in the bill. Thereby he eliminates efforts we are making to
modify the evidentiary rule that the Supreme Court has carved out for
search and seizure cases under the fourth amendment.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Would not the Constitution be superior language to what
the gentleman has codified?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentlewoman would yield further, it would not be
superior in the sense--it is superior in any event to anything the
court would do--but we have to interpret the Constitution for purposes
of deciding whether to admit evidence or not. That is, we are not
modifying the Constitution in any way, we are simply providing a
modification to a Supreme Court rule made in 1914 to police the police.
It was their decision to create this rule of evidence. They did not
modify the Constitution when they created it.
And they came along and said we are going to change our rule because
we think it is too harsh, what we did in 1914, back in 1984. And they
said, what we have before us is a search warrant case, and we think the
police in that case really acted in good faith.
They thought it was a good warrant, it turns out that it was not a
good warrant. We do not think there is any reason to exclude the
evidence that they got. There is nothing to be gained by this, because
we are not going to deter their conduct. So we want to simply expand
that.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Reclaiming my time: What I want to know is why not
allow this amendment to stand because it seems to achieve what the
gentleman wants. The gentleman wants to
[[Page H1338]] convince us that nothing he has is inconsistent with
the fourth amendment. And if that is true, whether it is redundant or
not, it simply would reaffirm his intention.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentlelady would yield further, it would not
reaffirm my intention because what we have in the bill is not a
recodification of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment would
exist and we cannot change it here on the floor of the House in any
event. It exists whether we pass the bill here or not. All we are
modifying is a rule of evidence. If you pass the fourth amendment as a
substitute for the rule of evidence modification then the existing rule
of evidence will continue to exist unmodified. We want to change it. We
do not want to leave it up to the Court. The court right now is
determining the rules of evidence in this area.
In Federal Rules of Procedure on Evidence we want to say--we have the
right to do that in the Congress and that is all we want to do. We want
to say to the court, instead of you doing it, we want to do it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's, my friend's explanation is a little
disingenuous. This is the mother of all warrantless searches that we
have before us and will ultimately, I predict, be found
unconstitutional because we put the objective reasonable good faith in
the police officer, not in the magistrate. And that is the fatal flaw.
So we have the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] with a
constitutional provision replacing it with what I predict will be an
unconstitutional amendment.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Let me raise one question: Does the gentleman believe
then if this was put in there that it would gut his bill, the
Constitution would then be nullified?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentlewoman would yield further, yes, it would,
because it strikes the bill.
Mrs. CLAYTON. But does that mean that the Constitution nullifies the
gentleman's bill?
Mr. McCOLLUM. No. If the Constitution exists it is going to exist
whether my bill is passed or not; it does not nullify the bill. But if
you pass a provision that strikes what is in the bill, that is what
nullifies it. I think we can add to the Constitution if we want to add
it to the bill, it would not nullify it. But by striking the language
in the bill you have provided us with a provision which does not leave
our provision standing.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Exclusionary Rule Reform
Act, H.R. 666, which has heretofore in this debate been referred it as
the mark and the number of the beast. And while I rise not to impugn
the integrity of any Member of this body or never felt intentions, I do
rise to talk, as I must, about what I consider to be the misguided
wisdom of this act. In an effort to correct a wrong we are imposing, in
my opinion, an even larger wrong. In the years that I have been a
Member of this body, with all due respect, I never felt more violated.
And I would suspect that people who are now watching this debate and
those who in years yet to come will read it will feel just as violated
also. And would ask as many are asking at this hour: What have we come
to? And what have we become?
{time} 1830
In an effort to punish the guilty, Mr. Chairman, we are ignoring our
sworn obligation to protect the innocent, and someone, Mr. Chairman,
rose earlier in this debate in a brash, and rash and unconscionable way
and argued that the debate was almost without merits and that the
debate on this side of the aisle was, in that person's opinion, absurd.
Well, the real question becomes then: Is it absurd to protect the
public welfare as we know it? Is it absurd to protect the sanctity and
the security of one's home against unreasonable search and seizure? Is
it absurd to enshrine the words of the fourth amendment in the bill
that we're about to vote on?
I would argue and submit, Mr. Chairman, that the absurdity is not in
the effort to correct the wrong. The absurdity is in the folly that
protects the wrong.
This bill renders the fourth amendment mute. It simply says it no
longer, for all intents and purposes, exists, and if that assumption is
wrong, then why not enshrine the words of that amendment in this bill
so that we underscore and underline for all to see our intention to
protect and uphold the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, a Constitution that every Member of this body 6 weeks
ago swore to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and
domestic?
Few people will remember what we say here today, but all will
remember what we do, and I would urge Members of this body, in
supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt] to understand our mission is to protect the innocent and to
take to heart the words that we are sworn to uphold and to protect the
Constitution that has protected us even against ourselves.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say we would be happy to
add the fourth amendment to the end of the bill. We would have been
happy to accept on this side the gentleman from Michigan's published
amendment No. 1 that would say, had he offered it, nothing in this
section shall be construed so as to violate the fourth article of
amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
We would be happy to do that because we do not think anything we do
does that, and we have no intention of doing so, and I understand the
gentleman's sincerity in what he has to say. It is just a concern that
I have that, instead of doing that, this particular amendment
eliminates the bill, the underlying bill. It is not simply added on.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the bill's sponsor to respond to the
suggestion by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that he would
be happy to add the words.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, nobody has proffered any
language to me that they would be interested in being supportive of,
and I would be happy to look at it and consider whatever language they
are proposing. But right now the amendment speaks for itself.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would
just like to point out that the amendment I suggest is what the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has published as his first
amendment in the Record, in the Congressional Record, and we would be
glad to accept that in lieu of what the gentleman is offering, if that
would be something he would want to do.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to take a
look at it and, while the next speaker is speaking, see if we can get
together on some language.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Members on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, I think are genuine
in their concerns, and I think also that Members on both sides of the
aisle often feel that there are too many laws that protect the
criminals and not enough for those that are persecuted, and that is the
victims. Who supports the exclusionary rule? Gestapo storm troopers?
No, it is all of our local law enforcement agencies and the district
attorneys. Why? Because often, too often, Mr. Chairman, those criminals
are let back out onto our society because of small technical reasons.
We are not taking a look to storm into people's houses. We are
looking where there is evidence found on good faith that that evidence
can be used in a court of law. That is not unreasonable.
Some of the same Members that are fighting for the fourth amendment,
we fought desperately for the same rights under the second amendment.
We said, ``Let's force and let's put minimum mandatory sentences on
those that violate the law using a weapon, any kind of a weapon, and
not go against the
[[Page H1339]] law-abiding citizens.'' But yet our voice was muted on
that issue, and I am sure it will be muted again. We do not want to let
criminals go on technicalities.
I would ask Members on both sides of the aisle to look at the items
in which we can really strengthen a crime bill, habeas corpus. We had a
gentleman named Alton Harris in San Diego that shot two boys and then
ate their hamburgers, he spent 14 years habeas corpus after habeas
corpus on death row, but yet many of the same Members will fight
against that. We need to go after the criminals and protect the
innocent in those kinds of things.
I had three Russian generals in my office, and they said that the No.
1 right that they value in the new Russia today is to own private
property and those rights, but I see it violated time and time again on
this floor, and I would say to the gentleman that quoted The Beast,
``Many of us consider Damien was killed on November 8.''
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, since we are about to vote on
this measure, I have a question: Since this bill that is before us
modifies the Constitution to some degree, would this not call for a
two-thirds vote of the House?
The CHAIRMAN. The simple answer is no. The amendment before us is not
a constitutional amendment.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman:
My inquiry was on the bill and not the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will issue the same ruling:
This is a bill and not a constitutional amendment.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman:
The bill precisely says that evidence which is obtained as a result
of a search or seizure shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court
of the United States on the grounds that the search or seizure was in
violation of the fourth amendment.
How is that not, Mr. Chairman, making the fourth amendment of the
Constitution moot or at least revising it?
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
He is raising a question of constitutional law.
That is a matter for the House to decide.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in light of the comments of the last speaker, I would
simply note that the purpose of the Constitution is not to protect the
guilty. The purpose is to protect the innocent. What we are talking
about here is the power of agents of the government to search the homes
of American citizens and to seize the property of American citizens,
and the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] gives us an opportunity to choose between the language of H.R.
666 drafted by the gentleman from Florida or the language reflecting
the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States drafted
by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
{time} 1840
I know it is a close call, but, pardon me, I am going to stick with
the old fellows.
I would also like to remind Members, in light of the comments made by
the previous speaker, of the words of Sir Thomas More in the play ``A
Man for All Seasons.'' More was having a discussion with his son-in-law
about the power of the king and the power of law, and his son-in-law
said, ``I would strike down every law in England to get at the devil.''
To which Sir Thomas More replied, ``And when the devil turned round on
you the laws all being flat, where would you be then? I would give the
devil the benefit of law for my own safety's sake.''
And that is really what we are talking about here today, whether or
not we will stand by the constitutional privileges laid down by the
Founding Fathers that protect American citizens from the occasional and
regrettable excess of the use of power by their own Government or by
the representatives of that Government.
I find it quaint indeed that in the name of conservatism we seem to
have conservatives in a wide variety of measures taking actions which
in fact give great additional power to the State, be it in this
language that is being provided today in H.R. 666, or be it in the line
item veto amendment by which we transfer huge pieces of authority to
the White House, or be it in some of the other portions of the contract
that are about to come before us.
So as I said beginning my remarks, I do not think the gentleman from
North Carolina need apologize for bringing the words of Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison to this floor. Frankly, if I looked out on
this floor and saw an awful lot of people that reminded me of Thomas
Jefferson or reminded me of James Madison, I might be willing to
entertain this language. But, frankly, when I look out on the floor, I
find precious few.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am here because I heard the debate on this issue, and
I have to tell you that the fourth amendment is not just words to me,
it is protection, real protection.
Let me tell you what it is like to live in a country which has no
fourth amendment.
I lived in South Africa, in fascist South Africa, and my mother was a
fighter for justice and for truth. And she lived in fear, constant
fear, that her home might be invaded, that papers might be taken out of
context and used in trials by the government against people who
believed in justice. And in South Africa, they longed for the fourth
amendment, Mr. Chairman. They longed for that protection.
Our police must be given the tools to fight crime, but it is our
citizens who must be protected, in their homes, in their lives, and in
their beliefs.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, in the committee we talked about not juxtaposing the
rights of victims against those of us who would think that freedom is
equally as important. We sought to strike a chord to bring legislation
forward that would fairly respond to the needs of victims and the
apprehension of criminals, but yet recognize the Constitution of the
United States.
For over 80 years since the Supreme Court's decision in Weeks versus
United States, the mandates of the fourth amendment have been enforced
through the application of the exclusionary rule, that prevents illegal
searches and seizures. It is not broken; it is working.
The Constitution stands alongside the exclusionary rule. This
proposed legislation without the amendment of the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] does damage to the Constitution and the sanctity of
the Supreme Court's affirmation of the exclusionary rule's application
to the fourth amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that as we have our children view high-
technology movies like the Last Action Hero, that they not view this as
today's America; that they know that the Constitution protects their
home,
protects their privacy, protects their rights. I think we need not move
into the 21st century believing that we are nothing but a movie, simply
seeing strangers around the country knock in our doors.Mr. Chairman,
that is not your average law enforcement officer. They are law abiding.
They have easy access to getting warrants based on probable cause. They
seek such warrants, they arrest people, they get convictions. Why
tamper with something that is not broken? Why not stand for the
Constitution that clearly says that our citizens have rights? In
particular when we talk about minority citizens, people who are seeking
an opportunity to work cohesively with law enforcement, but yet
acknowledge the fear sometimes of the intrusion on their private
rights.
Let us not dismantle what we are trying to build, a sense of
confidence and comfort, that the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of
the United States protects them too, protects those who are new
immigrants, protects those who do not speak the language, protects
those who live in inner-city neighborhoods. It is important that we
include all Americans, and that it is
[[Page H1340]] not in conflict with law enforcement or protecting all
citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for support of the Watt amendment, because
I believe the fourth amendment clearly states the purview of where we
need to go. It protects those who have been victims, it protects those
who are law enforcers, and it protects the rights of law abiding
citizens. It is the Constitution. It is something to be supported,
recognized and respected.
I rise to support the Watt amendment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in listening to the comments of some Members here as
ardent defenders of the Constitution, and we heard the Founders
invoked, one would think the exclusionary rule is written into the
Constitution. Yet I challenge anyone to show me where in the
Constitution that exists, because in point of fact it does not exist.
It was a creature of the court beginning in 1914 and applicable to the
actions of the Federal Government, and it was not until I believe 1964
in the infamous Miranda case that it was applied to State and local
agencies. It was simply an example of judicial legislation, the type
that has done such great violence to the Constitution that we should
all revere.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe in the Constitution, and I believe
that this creation, the exclusionary rule, has subjected innocent men,
women, and children to be the victims of crimes, and the perpetrators
of those crimes have gone free in some instances because of the
doctrine of the exclusionary rule. When violent crimes and homicides
have shot up hundreds of percent since 1960, it is time that we, the
people's representatives, set a proper balance, and that balance is the
good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I
would like to echo his refrain. I have the utmost regard for those who
favor the exclusionary rule as a means of enforcing or implementing the
fourth amendment. I respect your view. But it is necessary to point
out, as the gentleman just did, that almost none of the Constitution is
self-enforcing. It has to be enforced by a rule.
{time} 1850
The courts have chosen to try and enforce it in this instance by the
exclusionary rule. There are some of us who feel as deeply as our
colleagues that this is not the appropriate way to enforce the fourth
amendment. I would only add that the ultimate, almost, insult to the
Constitution of the United States is for those of us here, elected for
2-year terms, to demean the Constitution of the United States by
deigning to place the language of the Constitution in a mere statute
that we enact.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the exclusionary rule is not, as was just pointed out,
written into the Constitution. It was enacted in effect by the courts
in a series of decisions starting in 1914. The courts have observed,
the Supreme Court has observed many times, it is the only effective
means that has ever been discovered to enforce the guarantees against
unreasonable searches and seizures that are in the fourth amendment. It
is the only means that we have ever found which makes the words of the
Constitution guaranteeing the people the right to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures to be effective in the real world.
Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court of the United States has said in
construing the fourth amendment that the exclusionary rule shall not
apply where you have a search warrant and there is good faith asserted.
But it still applies where good faith is asserted but there is no
search warrant, not even a search warrant. They did not even go before
a magistrate to get a warrant to show probable cause why they should
search this
person's home or possessions or seize his property.
This bill would eliminate the exclusionary rule there, too. It would
say that even when you have no search warrant, you can go to somebody's
house, break into the house, search his papers, seize his effects,
seize the papers, and assert that you believed you were in good faith,
that you had constitutional right to do that.
In effect, it removes any real limits on the power to search and
seize.
Mr. Chairman, if you look at the history books, one of the chief
grievances that caused the Revolutionary War was the issuance by the
British authorities of writs of assistance, search warrants, and they
were trying to enforce legitimate revenue-collection laws. They issued
writs of assistance which said anybody must assist this officer in
searching this house or that place for anything. James Otis and Sam
Adams and John Adams thought this was tyranny, and what this bill would
do is to recreate the same effect as the British writs of assistance.
We are, in the name of trying to have law enforcement, so widening
the exceptions here that we have no effective protection for our own
liberty in our own homes.
``A man's home is his castle'' is an ancient maxim of the English
common law which we inherited. The writs of assistance issued by the
British authorities were invasions of that. It was felt to be
tyrannical, one of the leading causes of the Revolution in this country
against Great Britain. We have forgotten all this, and we are
recreating the writs of assistance by this bill, except, even with the
writ of assistance, you had to go before a magistrate and describe--you
did not have to describe what you were looking for, that was one of the
problems, but you had to describe why you were looking for something.
With this, you do not need a warrant. You do not go before a
magistrate, you simply break into somebody's house, seize whatever you
want to seize, and then assert that you, in good faith, believed
mistakenly that you had probable cause.
Mr. Chairman, this restores--it makes even worse what we rebelled
against in 1775. The Watt amendment, by putting the words of the fourth
amendment into this bill, which the Supreme Court has construed to
permit an exception to the exclusionary rule only when there is a
warrant, would put back that construction and would limit the
exceptions to the exclusionary rule to where it is now, and would
prevent it from being so widened as this bill would otherwise do as to
recreate even worse the situation that we rebelled against in 1775.
For the protection of our liberty, I urge that this amendment be
adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121,
noes 303, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 99]
AYES--121
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Pelosi
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
[[Page H1341]] Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--303
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Archer
Chapman
Frost
Gephardt
Manton
McKinney
Moran
Payne (NJ)
Ward
Yates
{time} 1911
The Clerk announced the following pair on this vote:
Mr. Gephardt for, with Mr. Manton against.
Mr. WISE and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hansen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Riggs, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 666) to
control crime by exclusionary rule reform, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________