[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.

                          ____________________