[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1380-H1390]
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} 1156
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 on Tuesday,
February 7, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] had been disposed of and the bill was open for
amendment at any point.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not rise at this time to offer an amendment. I
rise to comment on apparently a news broadcast that occurred last night
with respect to the bill, H.R. 666. I cannot tell my fellow Members
where this news report took place. I did not see it. But I received
some calls this morning which indicated that there was some rendition
of what we were doing on the House floor yesterday and today with
respect to this good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is just important to make a point
here, and that is, we are proposing to make and broaden an exception to
the exclusionary rule which already exists in law. Apparently, the
reports were that we are trying to repeal legislatively the entire
exclusionary rule, as it was enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court,
first in Federal cases in 1914 and, second, as applied to the States in
1961.
I certainly acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, that, and anyone could tell it
from some of the remarks that were made, that there are Members on our
side who feel that the entire exclusionary rule should be repealed.
There may even be, though we have not heard from them, I would not be
surprised if there are Members on the other side who believe that, too.
There is always the argument that no matter how evidence was seized
that, if it points to guilt, it should be used. I do not personally
share the view of repealing entirely the exclusionary rule. I think the
point that the Supreme Court made in the Mapp versus Ohio opinion of
1961 was also important.
In that case of a total disregard of constitutional protections based
upon search and seizure, the Supreme Court said, we have tried
everything else, now we will try to suppress evidence as a means of
encouraging law enforcement officers to comply with the fourth
amendment, which we do place on them through the fourteenth amendment.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] yield
for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
My inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is to get an understanding of what place we
are in the procedure before the committee. Is it correct that any of us
could now rise and seek recognition in order to speak on the overall
issue of the exclusionary rule or the fourth amendment or the bill,
H.R. 666, without dealing with an amendment? In other words, any of us
could now rise and speak on the issue?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The bill is open to amendment at any
point under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. COLEMAN. But this is not an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] was
recognized and was proceeding for 5 minutes.
Mr. COLEMAN. But not on an amendment, am I correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico has offered a pro forma
amendment.
Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Chair.
{time} 1200
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, as indicated, I am not offering an
amendment at this time. I have just sought recognition on the 5-minute
rule, and I will conclude in a moment here.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out exactly where we are. I
understand that there are Members who may still, because they so
indicated, oppose this particular bill, H.R. 666. I just wanted to
emphasize what this bill does and what this bill does not do.
This bill does not repeal legislatively the entire exclusionary rule,
or anything even that comes close to it. Speaking for myself, I would
not support a bill that would entirely repeal the exclusionary rule.
I think the Supreme Court had a logic in saying that there was a
reason to exclude evidence in certain cases that they enunciated, I
thought very well, in the Mapp versus Ohio decision of 1961. Rather, we
are taking an exception to the exclusionary rule which already exists.
It has already been stated by the Supreme Court in the Leon case.
In that case the Supreme Court said that where police officers make
an honest error, a good-faith error, that in that particular case it
made no sense under the theory of the exclusionary rule, under the
theory of trying to motivate law enforcement logic, to suppress that
evidence.
We take that a little bit further. In the area of searches without a
search warrant, and there are legal searches without a search warrant,
a search warrant is not required under constitutional law for every
search, any more than it is required for every arrest. There can be
arrests without a warrant.
My point is that we are making an extension of an exception that
already exists, and I just want to conclude by saying that we are not
repealing the entire exclusionary rule, and further, we are not
broadening the exception that much.
I understand that Members, when we get to final passage, will vote
yes or no as they see fit, but I just wanted to explain exactly what we
were doing.
amendment offered by mr. conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman, is this an amendment
that has been printed in the Record?
Mr. CONYERS. This amendment has not been printed in the Record, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers: Page 3, line 14, strike
the close quotation mark and the period which follows:
Page 3, after line 14, insert the following:
``(d) Limitation.--This section shall not apply with
respect to a search or seizure carried out by, or under the
authority of, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms.''.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered by myself, the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], and the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this time to thank
wholeheartedly the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for offering
this amendment on my behalf.
[[Page H1381]]
I will not take a lot of time because I will let the gentleman from
Michigan go back, and then we will take a couple hours, three hours to
debate this. I would just like to have plenty of time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has offered this amendment on my behalf because
of what I heard on the Republican side earlier today, this morning,
that one of their Members on the Committee on the Judiciary may, may
supplant my opportunity to offer this amendment by offering it
themselves, or offering a similar amendment or something that has
changed.
As a result of that, and not knowing what was going on on the
Republican side, and whether they were going to do it or not do it, as
a result, in order to preempt them, I asked the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers] to join with me in this amendment, which he has been
willing to do so that we at least have the opportunity on this side to
offer our amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I hate to see, I really do, this type of activity,
because I do not believe this type of activity is very conducive to
comity in this House and the running of this House.
In my 18 years, Mr. Chairman, in my 18 years I have never known of
anybody in our party after an amendment has been noticed, an amendment
had been notified and people have all been notified, that Members of
the other party, this party, when the minority party has done that, no
Member, no Member ever in 18 years has ever said We may offer an
amendment ourselves to preempt you the right to offer that amendment.
Mr. Chairman, what is going on? I thought just yesterday we started
out and we had good comity. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], their
leader, had been able to work with our leader and people and work out
the time frames on these crime bills. Then they come up with some
little dig like this.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is really beneath anybody as a Member of
this House to come up with such a strategy. It is childish, immature,
and I cannot understand their leadership and whoever came up with that
strategy at all. I am really disappointed that some people on that side
would even think of doing such an insidious tactic.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say, although it is certainly true that the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has worked on this amendment for
quite some time, I want to say that the accusations of some kind of
insidious kind of motivations I think go past where the situation calls
for.
The fact of the matter is that we are proceeding under an open rule.
This, of course, among other things, means that unlimited amendments
can be offered. Those of us who are presently monitoring this bill on
the majority side, speaking especially of myself at this moment, have a
grave reservation about the gentleman's amendment, despite the fact
that a great deal of information has come out that is very
questionable, I am sorry to say, about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, which I hope will be explored even further through the
committees of this House.
I want to say that I have a reservation about excepting an entire
police agency in this bill over certain incidents. It is a matter of
fact that there are still, even though I have this reservation, there
are members of my party who are more strongly agreed with the
gentleman's amendment, and they wanted their opportunity to present a
similar view.
Therefore, I do not think that is the same as some plot here to keep
the gentleman from Missouri from being acknowledged for his role in
this amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the basic legislation before us is bad legislation. It
would cause a raid by the BATF or any other agency of Government, to be
presumptively valid if there was any property which was seized pursuant
to the warrant.
That means any firearms owner, owner of a shotgun, sporting
ammunition, sporting weapons of any kind, or target weapons in this
country is subject to being raided without the slightest semblance of a
defense as to the illegality of the search or seizure, whether the law
enforcement authority has a warrant or not.
Mr. Chairman, let me read some words from William Pitt which I think
we should keep in mind as we consider the fourth amendment, which is at
least as precious as the first and the second.
Here is what William Pitt had to say, a great British
parliamentarian:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the
force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the
wind may blow through it: the storms may enter, the rain may
enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces
dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that in this country, until this
legislation, under interpretations of the Constitution by conservative
courts, not by a congregation of radicals, the ordinary citizen was
able to assume that he was protected in his home against improper raids
and against improper procedures under warrants, or lacking warrants, by
law enforcement persons entering his home. Under this legislation that
will no longer be so.
{time} 1210
A man had a right to assume that he was secure in his person, in his
property, in his home, and he had the right to know that he was
protected by the courts.
H.R. 666 would do away with those protections, and particularly so in
the case of owners of firearms and sportsmen in this country who use
their firearms solely for law-abiding purposes, legitimate sporting and
hunting and self-defense purposes.
Now, having said those things, let us look a little bit at what it is
that BATF has done over their history. I want my colleagues to go back
with me to the raid that was performed on the home of a law-abiding
citizen by the name of Kenyon Ballew. BATF first entered an apartment
upstairs where they held a shotgun at the head of some 8-year-old
children. When they found they had raided the wrong place, they then
went downstairs, and they broke through a back door in the man's home
which was never used. It was essentially a back door. They seized the
man's wife and threw her into the hall in only her underpants. Mr.
Ballew was coming out of the shower with a cap and ball revolver
seeking to defend his home and his wife against a noisy band of
intruders who bore no indicia of their service as law enforcement
officers.
Indeed, the event was classed as a training exercise. Mr. Ballew was
shot in the head, and he is today, if not dead, still a cripple and
still partially paralyzed, incapable of speech.
This whole unfortunate matter was covered up under the aegis of Mr.
Connelly, the then-Secretary of the Treasury. My colleagues on the
majority side of the aisle will remember Mr. Connelly.
I want to tell you about what they did after the raid was concluded.
They went outside, still dressed as hippies with beards and in scruffy
clothes, and at which time they first put on their BATF armbands to
show that they were law enforcement officers engaged in proper exercise
of their legal authority, and that they had given proper warning to the
individual of their authority which, in fact, they had not.
I want to tell you a couple of other things about the BATF. BATF ran
a citizen of the State of New Jersey off the road while he was driving
down the road in New Jersey with his wife and kids. They beat him up.
Then they found that they had attacked the wrong citizen, and then they
said, ``If you report this to anyone, we will be back and give you some
more.''
Now, I want to tell you about an innocent collector, whose home they
raided. They seized all of his valuable firearms, all legal, took them,
put them in barrels, damaged them, that is the firearms. The citizen
then had to sue to recover the firearms which were his lawful property,
and whose proper ownership was never contested by the BATF or anybody
else. But the law-abiding citizen had to go to court to sue, to recover
property improperly taken from him.
The records of BATF are rich with this sort of abuse of the rights of
citizens.
[[Page H1382]] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell was allowed to proceed for 4
additional minutes.)
Mr. DINGELL. The consequences of the behavior of the BATF in these
kinds of cases is that they are not trusted. They are detested, and I
have described them properly as jackbooted American fascists. They have
shown no concern over the rights of ordinary citizens or their
property. They intrude without the slightest regard or concern.
Now, if you want a more recent event, take a look at what they did in
Waco, TX. Is that a defensible event? Scores of Americans were killed
because of ineptitude by BATF acting under legal process, as they said,
and that whole matter is going to be suppressed after scores of
Americans have been killed because of the ineptitude and crass
misbehavior of the BATF.
Now, let us take a look at what this legislation does. H.R. 666 says
that there is no defense in the courts against that kind of behavior by
BATF or anyone else. The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Missouri says that BATF is not included within that rubric. They are
not protected in their misbehavior and they must defend their cases on
the basis of the propriety of their behavior as now defined under law.
Remember, all that the law now says is that before you raid a man in
his home you have to do it incident to a valid arrest or you have to do
it with a arrest or search warrant. I do not think that is excessive in
a free society, in one where we expect the ordinary citizen to be
secure and protected in his home.
Now, what is a citizen to do if he is improperly raided under H.R.
666? There is nothing, literally nothing, that the ordinary citizen can
do. The only defense which a citizen has under this kind of improper
raid by BATF or by any other agency, State or Federal, was to have the
information and the evidence improperly seized suppressed. H.R. 666
sanctifies misbehavior, and it makes such yard, and such seizure of
property presumptively valid. It eliminates any question of propriety
by the authorities.
Now, it is fair to say that with regard to criminal misbehavior, that
law enforcement agencies are able to and have consistently watched
wrongdoers over a long period of time. They built their cases with
care. Having built their cases with care, they then go to court and get
a proper warrant. Then they would proceed to execute the warrant.
H.R. 666, if enacted, will be applied to the ordinary citizen, not to
the hardened criminal, but rather to the law-abiding citizen who has a
rifle or shotgun in his closet or hanging over his mantlepiece or under
his bed, and he is going to be the victim of this kind of legislation.
His protection of home, property and personal security will be ended.
This is bad legislation. It has been said today it does not affect
the fourth amendment. In point of fact, it blows a huge hole in the
fourth amendment. What it says is that a raid conducted improperly
without proper warrant, or without warrant at all, is presumptively
valid, and the burden then shifts on to the defendant who has been
wronged by his Government, by the agencies of his Government, acting
under either no process or improper process to defend himself. The
wronged citizen is compelled to retain a lawyer. He is compelled to go
through a long and costly court procedure, and he cannot, under H.R.
666, get protection afforded him by the requirements for a proper
search. He cannot have property seized under an imperfect search
warrant, or no search warrant excluded from the trial. That is
literally the only defense that a citizen has against improper behavior
in terms of search and seizure by law enforcement personnel.
The attack on H.R. 666 is not an attack on law-abiding citizens. It
is an attack on wrongdoers. It is a bad piece of legislation.
I urge the legislation be rejected, and I urge the amendment offered
by the gentleman be adopted.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I must say I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Michigan quote
William Pitts. We were thinking of Billy Pitts on our side whom we all
miss, and I am glad, but I guess it was an earlier William Pitts to
whom he referred.
Waco suppressed: Gee, I remember sitting through an exciting 1-day
hearing under the aegis of the former chairman of the House Commitee on
the Judiciary where we heard all and sundry witnesses on the Waco
situation. I do not think it was suppressed, at least insofar as that
1-day hearing was concerned.
But I will just point out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms is an executive agency. It is part of the Treasury. Former
Senator Bentsen, who was the Secretary of the Treasury, was its
commander in chief. The present Secretary of the Treasury is the
commander in chief, for want of a better title, of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
And so this attack on an executive agency is interesting. I would
suggest if it is so horrible, let us get rid of it. I would suggest the
gentleman introduce legislation to dissolve the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms.
Instead, you want to make an exception to a general rule which we are
trying to adopt, modifying the exclusionary rule so guilty people who
possess evidence, contraband, when they are arrested, that it gets
admitted into evidence. To make an exception for a single agency of
Government is really foolish.
It would seem to me, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
is so oppressive, we ought to get rid of it. Let us attack it head on.
Let us hold hearings. I want to tell the gentlemen on the other side,
we are going to hold hearings. We are going to hold hearings on the
excessive use of force as alleged in Idaho, as alleged in Waco and
other places.
{time} 1220
We are going to look at that, absolutely. We are not going to sit
passively by or have 1-day hearings but to carve out an exception to
the exclusionary rule for one agency of Government which is an
executive agency of Government makes no sense.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I express great affection and respect for my friend.
Mr. HYDE. And it is mutual.
Mr. DINGELL. I am just curious. The gentleman is chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary. I am curious why he is in such a rush to
get this bill on the floor before he has looked at the kind of
misbehavior that I have described or the kind of misbehavior that the
gentleman is now describing.
Mr. HYDE. Well, all I can say is I do not recall the gentleman
introducing legislation to dissolve, to dissolve the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms. I would think that would be the way to go if what
the gentleman is half true.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment also, and I do so because, as I
understand the arguments that are being made, they come down to this:
The argument is that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is
riding roughshod over the rights of innocent law-abiding people, and I
want to point out that this was the testimony at our hearing on the
exclusionary rule that the exclusionary rule does not protect honest
citizens from a law enforcement agency or law enforcement officers who
are bent on ignoring constitutional rights. And the reason for that is
law-abiding citizens are not going to have any evidence of crime in
their possession which can be suppressed under any version of the
exclusionary rule.
That is why this amendment is misdirected to this bill. But the
chairman's suggestion to look more closely at the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms for other action is quite appropriate.
[[Page H1383]]
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is being
offered here this afternoon, for a number of reasons. I think that the
amendment is probably motivated by legitimate questions and concerns
about ATF's involvement in a couple of incidents.
But as Treasury, Postal Service's chairman and former ranking member,
we have had an opportunity to review these incidents and work with ATF
and a number of other people. Not being the boot-jacked Gestapo, as
they were described earlier, they are good, hard-working Federal
employees who have families, men and women with children, who are
trying to make a living and do what they think is right.
Earlier reference was made to the situation at Waco, TX, and I would
suggest to my colleague from Missouri and others who are so incensed
about the Waco issue that rather than respond to all the editorial
vitriol that we have read, which much of it is based in untruths and
innuendoes and hearsay, that they take an actual look at the case.
If you look at the Waco situation, the warrant that was used
initially was a valid warrant. Eleven people were charged. Eight of
those people have been convicted and are now in jail.
There were fully automatic weapons in the Davidians' compound, fully
in violation of the 1938--1934--law, which prohibits use of ownership
of fully automatic weapons in this country. It was a valid warrant.
I also suggest to the gentleman there were other law enforcement
agencies involved in the Waco situation, as was there was in Idaho. In
fact, the fire was not the result of the ATF, it was a result of the
FBI. Attorney General Reno, if you will remember, stood up and said,
``I take the heat for this. It was my decision.''
ATF is not a part of the Justice Department; they are under the
Treasury Department. It was two separate law enforcement agencies.
In the situation in Idaho, the ATF had made a clean arrest. But when
it got into the fire fight, it was the U.S. Marshall Service involved
in that incident.
So I would just suggest, as the chairman of our subcommittee, we have
hearings that are coming up and if the gentleman would like to withdraw
the amendment, we certainly would make available for him the
opportunity, or anyone else who would like to be there, to talk to ATF
to bring this thing down.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am not about to come and testify and talk to the
gentleman's subcommittee because it appears to me, from just listening
to the gentleman's statement, that the gentleman is completely in
agreement with whatever Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has
done in the past, including keeping law-abiding citizens' guns from
them after they have executed a search warrant, no charges ever filed.
They have kept those guns and still, even after filing suit, spent all
kinds of money to get them back. The gentleman is saying that is good
stuff.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman from
Missouri I have stood shoulder to shoulder with him fighting for second
amendment rights. I own guns. I used to be a gun dealer. I am a hunter.
I will go to the wall protecting the second amendment rights to own a
firearm. I think it is important. It is part of the Constitution. I
think we should do that.
ATF has been charged with the responsibility of enforcing our Federal
gun laws. It is not a popular thing to do. I would suggest, from
comments the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell] made, there is
probably not a law enforcement agency in this country that you cannot
go into and find one of these anecdotal stories where someone was
mistreated. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the business because a
lot of decisions have to be made under pressure, and sometimes those
decisions are not correct, and we will admit they are not correct.
I only say, to single one agency out, as we are doing here, is poorly
misdirected. If the gentleman persists with his amendment, I am
considering offering an amendment to the amendment which would include
in this exclusion the FBI and U.S. Marshals Office. Let's include them
all. The gentleman is totally off base. The whole purpose of the
exclusionary bill that we are offering anyway does not allow anyone to
go in on a raid without just cause. You still have to have a warrant,
you still have to do it right. It only addresses the fact that if,
during the process of executing that maneuver, you can obtain evidence
which later is valuable, it was obtained in good faith, then it would
be allowed to be admissible in courts. It does not exempt anyone's
rights or cause anyone to be under undue pressure from law enforcement
people. If you talk with law enforcement people, every day those people
work very hard. A lot of times they do things that are very much done
in good faith, but it gets kicked out in the courtroom, some criminal
goes free, and we really do not solve the problem.
I really think we have a bit of a witchhunt here.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to share my sense of happiness that my
Republican colleagues have succeeded so soon in improving American
Government. We have just heard virtually every one on the Republican
side rise to speak in praise of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, to defend the actions in Waco, to defend the actions in
Idaho.
Now, it had not previously been my experience that Republicans were
as supportive of the law enforcement efforts of the Clinton
administration. And I guess Republicans said that once they got into
the majority, things would get better. Well, they have apparently
gotten better more quickly than I had thought, because we have been
hearing from our Republican colleagues today words of praise and
support for the law enforcement Federal agencies that I had not
previously heard. I appreciate this.
The simple act of the Republicans switching from minority status when
they got to offer amendments and be critical, to majority status where
they are now really responsible has apparently had the wondrous
byproduct of improving the quality of the executive branch.
Republicans, who on the whole when they were in the minority were
quite critical of virtually all the actions of the administration, now
they are in the majority, with the responsibility for running this
operation, find virtues heretofore unchronicled in various of the
Clinton administration entities.
I want to say that I am pleased to welcome this spirit of
constructiveness. There is a higher degree of support coming forward
than I have heard before. I am glad they have found on a second look
that there is a lot more to be supported.
I have myself not been critical of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms. I had not previously recollected such Republican support. I
hope it will be noted the extent to which the Republican leadership
finds that the Federal law enforcement people at Waco and Idaho should
be praised.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of comity, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment and that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer] be recognized immediately to offer the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time to
say that I am sorry that the people on the other side continue to want
to deny Mr. Volkmer the credit to which he is entitled for bringing
this amendment forward.
But I do think that it is clear enough to say that this was the idea
of the gentleman from Missouri. Apparently,
[[Page H1384]] respect for law and order does not extend far enough to
not try to steal credit from the gentleman from Missouri.
{time} 1230
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Schiff], my friend, what the basis of his objection is? We have
already worked in comity during this bill and during the committee. I
am puzzled about this. This is a very small technicality, and would the
gentleman just tell us what is on his mind?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how parliamentary it is to
ask for a reason for objection to unanimous consents. I do not recall
their side ever having to explain, but I will be happy to.
The gentleman from Michigan stood up to offer the amendment. I guess
their side thought we did not know what amendment it was they were
going to offer. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] did not offer
the amendment; the gentleman from Michigan offered the amendment.
I say to the gentleman, ``It is your amendment, and it should stay
your amendment. We did not determine the order in which your side stood
up to offer this amendment.''
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would
just ask my friend, ``This unwillingness to let the gentleman from
Missouri take credit for his amendment; was it something he said?''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. May I point out to my friend, still my friend, that the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is one of the cosponsors of the
amendment with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. We are not
adding anything, and it may not come as news to my colleague that he
had worked on this amendment, not only now, but for quite a while.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] in the first place, but I
suggest, to economize, maybe the gentleman from Michigan can ask
unanimous consent to change his name to Volkmer.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] that we have 2 years in which to
operate in less than a little over a month, is what we have to operate
under. If the gentleman persists in making such what I call minuscule
objections, objections for minuscule reasons, I would say to him, ``You
can rest assured, gentleman, that this gentleman knows how to make
objections to unanimous-consent requests also.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent once more to
withdraw the amendment, and that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer] be recognized immediately to offer the same amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks that go to the substance of the
amendment which every person on the other side is the author of it.
I have listened very carefully to the learned remarks, to the
gentleman from Illinois, the distinguished chairman of this committee,
and I think they are very well spoken and very appropriate.
As the distinguished chairman noted, all of us who care about
effective law enforcement, who care about the abuses that all of us
have seen in law enforcement over the years, including in recent years,
are very concerned and are committed to addressing those problems. Mr.
Chairman, there are, however, effective and appropriate ways to address
them, and then there are ineffective and inappropriate ways, such as
this amendment, Mr. Chairman, which do not really get to the heart of
the matter and, in fact, may provide window dressing and refuge for
those who really do not want to address the problems.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment itself, as a
former U.S. attorney and somebody very familiar, I think, with the
sorts of joint law enforcement efforts that are extremely important,
particularly, but not exclusively, in the area of attacking organized
crime and drug trafficking in our country, it is frequent that we in
law enforcement, or those who are still in law enforcement, find
ourselves involved in trying to orchestrate very complex types of law
enforcement activities, and sometimes infrequently those involve the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI, DEA, IRS, State and
local agencies; and if in fact, as it is, the intent of those of us who
support H.R. 666 to strengthen the role of law enforcement in
legitimately carrying out those specific and important types of
criminal/anticriminal activities and to ensure that evidence that
should be admitted into court is in fact admitted into court under
appropriate safeguards which are included in our system of justice,
even under H.R. 666, when in fact there may have been a technical
violation, but again everything has to satisfy the standard of
reasonableness; then I can foresee very clearly and reasonably
situations in which the rights of victims and the rights of society in
general are going to be harmed if this amendment passes.
For example, Mr. Chairman, if we do have a joint operation involving
BATF as well as other agencies, State and/or local and/or Federal, and
there is a question that arises as to whether or not evidence should be
admitted under the terms of H.R. 666, the fact that ATF may have had
some role, whether it is minor or major in that operation, could
provide an exception through which a Mack truck could be driven, and we
would have in effect defeated the intent of H.R. 666.
So, while I share the gentleman from Missouri's very eloquent
statements on this issue, as well as the gentleman from Michigan's very
eloquent statements on this issue, I think it does not address the
underlying issue that the gentleman from Missouri raised both today and
yesterday with regard to the second amendment which I, despite his
intimation yesterday, cherish, and know about, and cherish as well as
any amendment to the Constitution, but this is not the appropriate
vehicle with which to address those very fundamental concerns, and I
agree they ought to be addressed, and I do think that this amendment,
if it were to go forward, would have the effect of defeating in some
instances, but perhaps in very important instances involving major drug
trafficking cases, that our Government may choose to bring on behalf of
the citizens. This amendment could have the effect of having evidence
that really ought to be admitted not admitted, and it could have,
therefore, Mr. Chairman, an adverse impact and one that I do not think
the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle who are proposing really
intend for it to have.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this
amendment. Its premise is slanderous to 2,700 of our fine law
enforcement officers. It is a bigoted statement I say to my friends who
have been the subject of bigotry. An NRA letter says that soemhow ATF
agents, unlike all the other agents, cannot be trusted. There is no
evidence of that. Two hundred sixty-six of those agents since 1920 have
lost their lives. Do my friends on this side of the aisle want those
agents to believe that somehow they are less trustworthy than other law
enforcement agents in this country? I think not. The chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary is correct. If that is our premise, then let
us abolish ATF.
My friends in this House, we are talking about crime bills. We are
talking about safe streets, and safe schools, and safe communities, and
safe neighborhoods. They are threatened today by some of the most
violent, vicious
[[Page H1385]] people in America who traffic in guns that will kill
people very fast, and a lot of them, not to hunt, not to shot at
targets, and they traffic in explosives. We just had a plea by somebody
in New York who wanted to blow up the United Nations, undermine the
security of the international community. Who investigated and found
that conviction? An ATF agent.
Now I think this bill can be argued one way or the other on its
merits as to whether you want to extend the exclusionary rule good-
faith to warrantless searches or not. I think that is a legitimate
debate, but I say to my friend on this side of the aisle: Let us not
slander some very good people who daily we ask to go up against some of
the most dangerous, deranged criminals in this land who threaten the
stability of this Nation.
There is no evidence to support the contentions of the NRA that,
unlike all others, and I presume that they would like to see this
exclusionary rule applied to the Los Angeles Police Department, or the
New York Police Department, or the Dallas or Miami Police Department;
they would like that.
{time} 1240
Their premise presumably is that they are perhaps not as well-trained
or as carefully or as closely supervised as the agents of ATF, and they
are wrong--dead wrong. I say to my friend, the chairman of the
committee, for whom I have great respect and with whom I am probably
going to vote at the conclusion of the consideration of this bill, do
not besmirch these officers, do not single them out. There is no
evidence on which to say that they are less competent or less concerned
with constitutional protections.
They protect our country. We have asked them to do so. We have asked
them to do one of the most difficult jobs of law enforcement in this
country--dealing with those who traffic in illegal guns and explosives
that can kill a lot of people very quickly.
Do not pretend that the debate on this floor is simply in a vacuum to
make political points against our friends on that side of the aisle,
that we will embarrass them for voting against the NRA this time, and
that those 2,700 agents and all their predecessors and that
organization will somehow be oblivious to the debate on this floor that
intimates that they are less worthy of being extended this authority
than some other law enforcement agents charged by the Government of the
United States to protect the welfare of this Nation.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I am glad to yield to my very good friend, the gentleman
from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I am just curious. Did the gentleman vote
against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan yesterday?
Mr. HOYER. No, I voted for it.
Mr. VOLKMER. What did that do? It did the same thing for all law
enforcement as what this does for BATF.
Mr. HOYER. I understand that. That was on the merits.
Mr. VOLKMER. Yesterday the gentleman said it was OK, and today he
said it is not.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, to respond to my friend, the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], as I said at the beginning, that is on the
merits of this issue. I think this is a serious issue. There are a lot
of Members on this floor who are very concerned about the fourth
amendment, which is an amendment that sets us apart from much of the
world. It was an amendment that the forefathers thought was critically
important so that the King Georges to come in future generations could
not simply say, ``I'm going to come into your house; I'm going to come
into your private spaces to investigate'' absent probable cause and a
magistrate supposedly and in most instances objectively making a
determination that there is probable cause.
That is, I say to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, the
objective issue. This amendment does not deal with a substantive issue.
It deals with politics, and in the process of politics and posturing it
deals with trying to embarrass the other side. I understand that. But
my concern with it is that in the process of doing that it slanders a
group of people that we ask to do one of the most dangerous jobs in
America.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
reject this amendment and then vote on the policies raised by the
substantive bill itself.
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would join in the remarks and ask to
be associated with the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer] as pertains to his regard for the BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms.
As a former U.S. attorney, like the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Barr], I had experience dealing with the ATF on a daily basis and found
that they feel very strongly about their mission, and, No. 2, they
support by and large as individuals, as I do, the second amendment
right to bear arms. I do not think there is anyone any stronger than I
am in that regard, as are the Members standing up and talking at this
point. And that is not the issue here. The real issue is, what do we do
with fighting those criminals who carry guns and use those weapons in
the commission of crime?
During my tenure as U.S. attorney there was a project called Project
Trigger Lock that focused on aggressive prosecution of those criminals
who used guns in the commission of those crimes. It was the prosecution
of existing Federal laws, not new laws but laws already on the books,
prosecuting felons in possession of weapons. And that program was
primarily the result of the work of the ATF.
In our area we had one of the most outstanding Trigger Lock programs
throughout the country, one which formed a coalition between ATF and
local authorities, including sheriffs, deputies, and police chiefs, in
ferreting out again those violent people, those criminals who use guns
in the commission of crime. This is what everyone says we ought to do,
and that is lock up the people who commit the crimes using the guns,
but protect the rights of those innocent law abiding citizens who own
and possess these weapons.
My experience with the ATF was that they worked hand in hand with
other agencies very well. And as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr]
said earlier, to amend this proposal, this bill, would weak havoc on
the law enforcement activities of the ATF as well as all the other
agencies they work with.
We had task forces, as I described earlier, that involved local law
enforcement authorities in joint operations. Just as a practical
matter, to hamstring the ATF with this type of amendment, it would be
an impossible task for them to be functional. But I think, more
importantly, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] pointed out, to
label one agency with perhaps mistakes made by some and those yet to be
decided--and I am sure they will be fully aired as we progress into our
Judiciary Committee--but to label one group and to focus on them and
exempt them from this bill, I think, is unfair to the many outstanding
agents of the ATF.
My experience has been that they were a well-trained, professional
organization, trained on a par with other Federal agencies, the FBI,
the DEA, Postal, Customs, INS, the whole works. Without exception, I
found they were excellent officers. I think such an exemption from this
bill is unwarranted and ill-conceived.
I think if we are going to do anything, if there is a problem with
ATF, then let us look at it and see if the agency should even exist.
But again to hamstring them with this type of amendment is not a good
idea, and I would strongly oppose it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say briefly that we have
heard some impassioned opinions about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, both in their favor and in their opposition. I want to
point out, however that I do not think this is going to be an amendment
that will be decided
[[Page H1386]] on whether we approve of how the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms by itself operates.
The issue is, will this amendment, if it passes, affect those issues
that the sponsors and proponents have offered? And the fact of the
matter is, if in fact any officer or group of officers--and I say,
``if''--have made a conscious decision to deliberately violate the
constitutional rights of any of our citizens, the fact of the matter is
that the exclusionary rule of evidence does not protect honest citizens
anyway in that circumstances because honest citizens will not have the
evidence of crimes which can be suppressed and not used against them at
the time of trial. There will never be any kind of criminal conduct,
and that is why in my judgment this amendment is misapplied, and if
there are problems with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, as
suggested, I think other remedies could be brought to bear by this
Congress.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment, and that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] be
recognized immediately to offer the same amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The amendment has been withdrawn, and the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Volkmer] is recognized.
amendment offered by mr. volkmer
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer: Page 3, line 14, strike
the close quotation mark and the period which follows.
Page 3, after line 14, insert the following:
``(d) Limitation.--This section shall not apply with
respect to a search or seizure carried out by, or under the
authority of, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.''.
Mr. VOLKMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Since this is a new amendment, the Chair is inclined to
recognize the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] for the purposes of
explaining his amendment.
{time} 1250
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] be allowed to continue and address the
committee for 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues and
the American people have been listening to this debate on the
underlying bill. I do not want to deal with the amendment itself. I
want to talk about the bill that has been offered, because what this
bill forces us to do is exactly what we have seen happen on the Floor
of this House for the last 2 days. It forces us to try to decide who is
good and who is bad.
If I hear one more time during the course of this debate that this is
not about innocent people, that this is about guilty people, I think I
will throw up. This is about the American people and the Constitution
of the United States. It is about innocent people who own guns, who
might have them in a closet somewhere and have their door kicked in,
which is why this amendment was offered. It is about innocent people
like the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush], who might have bird seed
in their closet, and have their doors kicked in because some police
officer thought he had some cause to do it and could not go down to the
courthouse and get a warrant.
It is about innocent people like the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder], who had a button, a campaign button in her house, and had
her whole being violated by the FBI, who came in, in violation of her
rights.
It is about innocent people who own homes, who have the right to be
secure in those homes. And we cannot afford as America to turn the
questions about who is good and who is bad in our society over to a
police officer on the street, whether that police officer is from the
ATF, the FBI, the CIA, the Atlanta police, the Raleigh police, the New
York police. We cannot make those choices, and the Constitution of the
United States put us in a position where we did not have to make those
choices.
This debate points up exactly what point I am making, because here we
are now talking about whether the ATF is good or whether the FBI is
good, or whether this police department is good or that police
department is good. But that misses the whole point. It misses the
point that every citizen in this country is presumed to be good,
presumed to be innocent, until they have had their day in court, and
that we ought not allow a police officer in the heat of the moment to
kick somebody's door in and make that decision on the spot.
The first amendment, as I indicated yesterday, is not about people
who engage in mainstream speech. It is about protecting the rights of
the people to say what they want when we do not like what they are
saying.
The fourth amendment is not about protecting the guilty or the
innocent. This is not about whether we like criminals or not. Nobody in
this House likes criminals. I do not want the police officers out there
on the street to decide on the spot whose door they are going to kick
in and whose rights they are going to violate, even if they are 99
percent right and there is just that 1 percentage point of people out
there whose rights they violated. Because that 1 percent, that 1.3
percent we have heard talked about here on this floor, is what the
fourth amendment was designed to protect.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this bill puts us in a
position of sitting here on this floor and getting into these kinds of
irrelevant debates. I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer]. We ought not exempt this one agency without exempting
other agencies. We ought to exempt the entire American people from the
effects of this bill. That is what the amendment ought to say. If we
believe in the Constitution this demon bill, 666, ought to be withdrawn
and go back where it came from and never see the light of day again.
Give me the Constitution, drawn by the Founding Fathers, not some
version of rights thought up by the Republican Contract for America. I
will take the Constitution any day.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized
for 5 minutes.
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend is
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the debate here,
and what I hear concerns me greatly. Because what I hear is that we
have nothing but praise almost by the speakers, especially the
gentleman from Illinois, the gentleman from Iowa, the gentleman from
New Mexico, the gentleman from Georgia, about one of the most Rambo-
rogue-law enforcement agencies in the United States.
I say that this amendment is not political, Mr. Chairman. This is
something that Harold Volkmer has been working on because I believe
strongly not only in the fourth amendment, but every amendment to the
Constitution, including the second amendment. And if there has ever
been a violation by any agency of this government of the second
amendment right of the people and gun owners and hunters and sportsmen
of this country, it is by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
I as a member of the board of the Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense
Fund can tell you that this is not something that just happened at
Waco, folks. It is not something that just happened in Idaho, folks.
Those are the
[[Page H1387]] big ones that got the news. The little ones that we are
working on right now, this day, and been working on continuously since
I came to this
Congress off and on, it depends on who is running the BATF, we have
got them going on right now, violations of individuals' rights to own
guns.
Well, how would you like it if you had a gun collection and you were
a part-time law enforcement officer and you did something that the BATF
agent just didn't like, and he did not like you, and he went and got a
search warrant and he went in and took all of your guns, every one of
them out of your house, about 55 of them, and to the gentleman from
Ohio, I say, it happened in Ohio, and they took them away. Never an
indictment, never a complaint. Three years ago. And guess what, folks?
He still has not got his guns back. He has a lawsuit over it, and we
are helping him on it.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell you more. How about places getting broken in
by BATF, and, ``I am sorry, folks, after we have torn up the place, we
did not find anything.'' ``I am sorry, folks, wrong address.''
What is going on with this Rambo outfit? This is not something that
just started this year. When I first came to this Congress I was a
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I heard about instances of
BATF and how they were trying to put gun dealers out of business. And
that is going on right now, and I can tell you another instance about
that right now.
{time} 1300
They are trying to put dealers out of business so they cannot sell
the guns that our people should have. That was going on because they
said there were too many dealers that we have got to get rid of them,
and we have got to get rid of the little ones because we cannot
investigate them all. That was their excuse for their attitudes.
As a result of that, starting in 1978, in my freshman year, I started
working on what became known in Missouri as the Volkmer-McClure bill.
In Idaho, it is known as the McClure-Volkmer bill. That bill corrected
at that time many of those abuses that were taking place. And for a
while it was awful quiet and they behaved themselves. But right now
they are right at it again.
It is not much different when I first came here; in fact, it is
sometimes worse.
This bill, without this amendment, the gentleman from New Mexico,
when we were discussing it yesterday, said, well, all it means is, if
the difference is that if they do not find anything, it does not make
any difference; if they do not find anything illegal, it does not make
any difference if you have a warrant or you do not have a warrant.
Gentlemen, we all know that. That is silly. What this bill does to
the BATF is give them a green light. They do not have to go to the
magistrate and get a warrant for anything. They just go right in there
and bust those doors down.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The time of the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Just bust the doors down and go in and take the guns and
if they find something illegal, they say ``Hey, we gotcha.'' And if
they do not find anything illegal, they say sorry. Sometimes they do
not even say that, folks.
Right now they have guns in their possession and some of them, by the
way, when they have been forced to return them, forced by court orders
to return them, they are not worth a darn anymore. They are damaged.
They are rusted. They make sure that our gun owners do not have any
guns. There is not any other Federal agency or local agency anywhere in
this country that is about this business, but this agency is.
Now, they may do some good things down the road, but they also do
some terrible things. I do not believe that the civil rights, and I
call them civil rights, under the Constitution of my gun owners, my
hunters and my sportsmen, should be put in jeopardy by this bill giving
those very same agents the right to go in and take them away. And what
I am amazed at, there has not been one Member from that side of the
aisle to stand up in favor of sportsmen, hunters, and gun owners.
Who has stood up? I will tell my colleagues who has stood up. Not
just Members on this side, the National Rifle Association of America.
What does it say?
Just yesterday, ``The National Rifle Association of America would
like to express our strong support for your amendment exempting the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms from a relaxation of the new
exclusionary rule standard as embodied by H.R. 666. The slipshod regard
and generally low esteem that ATF has traditionally shown for the
constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans indicates that the term
`good faith' has little meaning for them in the context in which they
conduct their investigations. We would be remiss in our responsibility
to our members and to the rights of all law-abiding Americans were we
to allow a further relaxation of the fourth amendment standards to
which ATF already gives short shrift to go unremarked and unopposed. We
urge all Members of the House to vote in support of your amendment.''
Also I would like to read from the Gun Owners of America. They, too,
today delivered a letter to me.
``I urge you to support the Volkmer amendment to H.R. 666. This
amendment simply states that the bill will not apply to any searches
and seizures carried out by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms. BATF has developed a torrid history when it comes to
violating people's gun rights. And thus, Gun Owners of America will
score the Volkmer amendment as a gun vote. That is, a vote for the
Volkmer amendment will be scored as a pro-gun vote.''
I just want to let all of my colleagues know that what I have heard
today on this amendment really bothers me, because I know what BATF is
doing out there to our people. And yet I am not going to have any
avenue in this Congress to do anything about it except through this
amendment. Because it is very apparent to me that the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the majority members of that Committee on
the Judiciary think that BATF is a wonderful agency. And they are going
to go out and protect that agency. So when I ask for hearings to look
into these abuses by BATF, they are going to tell me, forget it,
because we are going to protect them. We are not going to do anything
to hurt that agency. That is a wonderful agency. That is what I hear
from that side.
I was prepared, we are watching some right now, I was waiting just
for the opportune time to come to them and say, we need to have some
hearings. We need to look into what this agency is doing. Now I am not
going to have that avenue.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.
I do not know if the gentleman recalls, but to the best of my
recollection, on each of the firearms-related bills that have been
introduced on the House floor, I believe the gentleman and I have been
on the same side of the argument each and every time. That is my best
recollection.
Second of all, I will join the gentleman in seeking hearings on the
issues that have been raised concerning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms on this floor.
My opposition to the gentleman's amendment very simply is his
amendment and this bill have nothing to do with what the gentleman is
talking about. I would like to explain it two ways.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we
have the exclusionary rule intact now, and it has not prevented any of
the incidents that the gentleman has described. And it will not protect
anyone in a situation where, if as alleged by the gentleman from
Missouri, an agency or even an officer, one officer, have become, to
use the gentleman's words, a rouge officer, a rogue institution. Those
individuals who choose to abuse their law enforcement power and do so
[[Page H1388]] for the purpose of harassing law-abiding citizens are
not going to be deterred by the exclusionary rule because they are not
looking for evidence to use in a criminal case in the first place.
To turn it further the other way, this offers a good faith exception.
If ATF or any other agency breaks down a door without a search warrant
to someone's house, in a situation where they needed a search warrant,
it is not good faith, even if they happen to find something that is
illegal. It would not be allowed under this bill. So with the utmost
respect, again, I suggest that the gentleman's amendment, which he
obviously feels so very passionate about because of his view of this
agency, is not applied correctly toward this bill.
I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding to me.
Mr. VOLKMER. I quite disagree with the gentleman from New Mexico that
what I said before, it does not change maybe what BATF is doing at the
present. But I still say, because they can go on reasonable belief that
what they are doing is right without a warrant, which they cannot do
today. They have to get the warrant today. If they are going to go in
and take somebody's guns away from that house, they better get a
warrant.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
again, there must be an objectively reasonable belief that a search
without a warrant was in fact constitutional at that time. If it is not
supported when that matter is reviewed by a magistrate, the evidence
would still be suppressed and it does not protect innocent citizens no
matter what kind of exclusionary rule standard we have.
Mr. VOLKMER. Let us talk about that just for a minute. We have a
little case not far from right out here in Virginia. We talk about all
these things
that these magistrates are going to do and everything. How about when
a magistrate does not even know what the law is and the agent does not
know what the law is. And he goes in and asks for a search warrant to
go into somebody's business and take away the guns because he says that
these guns are illegal, the magistrate does not know that they are not
illegal, that they are legal, and he issues the search warrant and they
go get it.
Now, what happens is that he gets sued, and he is going to get sued,
that agent is. Now, the thing is that under this, he would not have to
go to that magistrate.
{time} 1310
That agent based that on erroneous information that an informant had
supposedly told him, and the magistrate issued a warrant on that basis.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Schiff and by unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Under this bill, Mr. Chairman, after that informant had
told that agent that information, he could have gone down there and
took guns without a search warrant. For that reason, I say if you want
to protect your gun owners from these rogue people, I would say Members
had better vote for this. This will be the last chance, the only chance
Members as gun owners, people protecting gun owners, will have the
right to do that.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman one more time for his
courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point our that the gentleman's premise is
what I believe is incorrect in this debate. There is nothing in this
bill that changes the law as to when a search warrant is needed or is
not needed. It deals only with those situations where, when a search is
made without a warrant, if there was a good-faith error, then the
evidence can be considered. It expands an exception that already exists
in the law for search warrants.
In all of the examples the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has
given, he has described anything but good faith. Therefore, there is
not protection to honest citizens by the gentleman's amendment. Honest
citizens, in fact, are not even protected by the exclusionary rule. If
a law enforcement officer wants to go through that door, with the power
of his immediate armament, and seize something, he or she is going to
do it. If so, the exclusionary rule is not going to stop them, because
that is an after-the-fact determination when someone is believed to be
guilty.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think there are a couple of points that need to be
made to put all of this in perspective.
First of all, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the
Committee on the Judiciary, I want to make sure everyone is aware that
it is our intention to hold hearings in the next couple of months on
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and on firearms issues
generally, and on some of these alleged rights violations, which may be
very real or maybe are not, but we are going to explore that.
There will be opportunities, I would present, not only there but
probably through legislation that will come out here on firearms in May
or June that will give the Members the opportunity to debate all kinds
of issues related to this.
Second, what we are doing today, it needs to be stated what it is
not, rather than what it is, sometimes. What it is not, it is not a
relaxation of the fourth amendment protections against unlawful search
and seizures.
We are doing absolutely nothing in the underlying bill today that
would in any way affect a person's right to be protected from unlawful
search and seizure by police, BATF, or anybody else.
Second, Mr. Chairman, what we are not doing is destroying the
exclusionary rule. I heard one of the major networks this morning on
one of its morning shows state that this bill would abolish the
exclusionary rule of evidence which the Supreme Court established in
1914.
The legislation that we are presenting here today does nothing of the
sort. It does not abolish that rule. What we do today, what we are
about to do if we pass this bill is to make it very clear that where
the Supreme Court itself has carved out what it calls the good faith
exception to its own rule of evidence that was designed to deter police
from doing things that might violate the Constitution by saying ``If
you do it, naughty boys, we are not going to let your evidence in that
you get there,'' where it has modified itself and says, ``Look, the
police really would have done this anyway.''
There would not be any deterrent there because they had a reasonably
objective belief that what they were doing was right in the cases of
the warrants which have been presented to them; where there was a
search warrant, the court said ``We are not going to let this rule
apply. We are going to have a good faith exception, let the evidence
in, let the conviction, if the court can get a conviction, stand
against the bad guys.''
The court has never faced the situation of a warrantless search,
though there are many of them that are perfectly constitutional, with
the question of the exception we are proposing today.
However, there have been two Federal circuit courts that have, in the
fifth and eleventh. They have embraced what is in this bill. That is
what we are doing today. We are saying ``Let us make this nationwide,
so we do not have any loopholes involving this question and letting
more criminals off the hooks than already have gotten off the hooks in
the past.''
If we look at the Arizona case I cited out here in debate yesterday,
I think it is illustrative to put to rest the concerns that the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has with respect to BATF or any
other law enforcement agency.
The type of example we have a concrete example of is an Arizona case
in which there was an arrest warrant, not a search warrant, which had
been issued on somebody who was stopped by the police out there.
It turns out that 17 days before they stopped this fellow that
warrant, that arrest warrant, had been quashed. It had been done away
with. It was not any good anymore, but their computers did not show it.
The police, because the computers had not had this input put in
this,
[[Page H1389]] stopped this fellow. They searched him and they found
evidence of additional crime, marijuana, and I don't know what else.
The courts, because of the rule that the Supreme Court has no
exception for cases that do not involve search warrants, threw out this
evidence and said this was an unconstitutional search because there was
no arrest warrant, and they had no right to make this search, but the
police legitimately thought they were.
There was absolutely no deterrent effect on their behavior or would
not be any by throwing out the evidence and losing a potential
conviction of a bad guy.
The same thing would be true in a case involving weapons, whether it
is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or the FBI or local law
enforcement.
There is no change in it at all. The illustrations the gentleman from
Missouri has given out here today would not be appropriate, in my
judgment, to what this legislation we have today affects.
We are affecting a very small situation, but sometimes a critical
one, where the police honestly believe that they are doing the right
thing when they do it, whatever police agency it is, and I do not think
that the amendment is appropriate to give an exception to any police
agency and say what we are doing does not apply.
It should apply to all of them. We should address the abuse that any
agency has outside of the context of this in some other forum, and we
will do that in the future, but not in this bill, because there is no
way that excepting BATF from this particular bill, we are going to
correct any problems that they may have had in the past or may have in
the future.
The BATF, if they are abusing the law and the constitutional rights
and doing something illegal or improper, are going to do it just as
much in the future after this bill because law as they have done in the
past, because what we are passing out here would have no impact
whatsoever with respect to what they do or do not do, since it requires
what we are requiring for any exception for evidence to come in, a
judge finding a reasonably objective basis on the part of whatever
police officer it is, including BATF, that what they are doing, they
did in the believe that they were acting----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. McCollum]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, that is because the police, the BATF, or
whoever it is, is going to be acting in order for evidence to be
allowed, whatever it is, in this bill, in order to get convictions,
they are going to have to be acting in the reasonably objective belief
that they were correct, that there was no problem, as in the arrest
warrant case I just gave as a real illustration in a real case in
Arizona that has gone before the Supreme Court.
So I do not see any harm, Mr. Chairman, in what we are doing at all.
We have two Federal circuits that already have permitted this for all
Federal agencies, be that BATF, FBI, or anybody else, and no ill will
has come from this, no bad results, and I do not think there should be
any exceptions to this, as I say, including the gentleman's effort.
Many of us who may agree with him on other matters relating to
firearms simply cannot support this amendment today, even though we
understand he is trying to make a protest vote out here on BATF.
Unfortunately, it undermines the very basic law we have.
There may be many cases where BATF, FBI, et cetera, work in concert,
and you can just mess up the whole evidentiary train if you affect one
agency.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the Volkmer
amendment to H.R. 666, the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act.
I am a strong supporter of second amendment rights. Like the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], I have serious concerns about
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. On numerous occasions it
is my belief, and certainly the headlines have reflected, that the BATF
has overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries and trampled on the
rights of law-abiding citizens.
Clearly, we must seriously examine the reckless actions of this
agency and work to eliminate the BATF by consolidating its legitimate
functions with other agencies. Congress needs to thoroughly review
every aspect of the agency's operation and its inefficiencies.
In the interim, strong congressional oversight and congressional
control over BATF's budget is the best way to influence BATF management
and decisionmaking and safeguard the rights of America's gun owners.
Passage of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is not a solution to the
problems with the BATF.
{time} 1320
Congress has a responsibility to maintain strict oversight of this
agency. Creating an exemption for the BATF from the reform of this
exclusionary rule will not stop the BATF from committing unreasonable
searches. It will make it easier for hardened criminals to walk on a
technicality.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 198, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 101]
AYES--228
Ackerman
Allard
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burton
Callahan
Camp
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Ensign
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hunter
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Klink
Klug
LaHood
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quillen
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schroeder
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--198
Abercrombie
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
[[Page H1390]] Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Cox
Coyne
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Doggett
Dornan
Dreier
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hansen
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McKeon
McNulty
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wolf
Wyden
Yates
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3
Collins (IL)
Reynolds
Rush
NOT VOTING--5
Brown (FL)
Flake
Frost
Hastings (WA)
Solomon
{time} 1340
Mr. MARKEY, Ms. RIVERS, and Messrs. PALLONE, MANZULLO, and FRANK of
Massachusetts changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. McKINNEY, Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. HARMAN, Mr.
GONZALEZ, Ms. McCARTHY, Ms. DUNN of Washington, and Mr. OLVER changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. REYNOLDS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________