[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1390-H1400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, because of an unavoidable detainment on the 
way from the White House, I missed rollcall vote no. 101. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                              {time}  1340


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: 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 Internal Revenue Service.''

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want this amendment to be understood. 
I want it to be debated.
  The House has evidently reviewed behavior. I want all the Members in 
the back to hear this amendment, and I want your vote. The American 
people want your vote.
  Evidently, we have discussed conditions under which some of us may, 
in fact, in some areas support the bill and in other areas where 
Congress has some significant reservations.
  My amendment is not reactive. My amendment is strictly prevention. 
Now, I would like to urge the Members of Congress to consider that an 
ounce of prevention is worth a whole pound of cure.
  My amendment states that this section shall not apply with respect to 
a search or seizure carried out by the Internal Revenue Service.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have an Internal Revenue Service that has 
taken license and has, in fact, intruded the kitchens and the family 
rooms of the American people on many cases. Those cases are now 
legendary.
  In the matter of Alex and Kay Council of North Carolina, their 
accountant advised them under a windfall profit they made on the sale 
of a business that there was a legitimate tax shelter for a specific 
investment; they took it. The IRS found difficulty and ruled that the 
tax shelter was not allowed.
  And the case was finally adjudicated, the notice of deficiency was 
sent to the wrong address. The IRS said they have no bounds by the 
Congress of the United States to prove they made a proper notice.
  In the case of Alex and Kay Council, Alex Council, completely 
frustrated, finding no other ways to fight this large agency that he 
reported to that was out of control, took his life and left 
instructions how his life insurance policy will allow for, in fact, 
that death benefit on his suicide, and how she could apply that 
insurance policy, that life insurance policy, to fight the Internal 
Revenue Service, and she did.
  It has come to the point where the Internal Revenue Service is 
certainly charged with an important task by our Government, Mr. 
Chairman, but Congress, through a lack of oversight, has allowed this 
agency to become a little intrusive, even to the point where they enjoy 
the only exemption under the burden-of-proof statutes of the Bill of 
Rights which I want to commend the majority party for giving an 
opportunity for a hearing for that in the future.
  My amendment basically says, ``Look, the IRS has so much intrusive 
power now that to give any more further license would be not in good 
conscience of the Congress of the United States of America,'' 
understanding the legendary behavior of this agency.
                              {time}  1350

  Now I am not talking about FBI, DEA, ATF, that I recommend to the 
Congress that all those agencies be put up under one. There is no 
coordination, as a former sheriff, there is no, or very little, 
coordination of them anyway. I would not be surprised to have the CIA 
and DEA thrown up under the FBI, too, with an international section.
  But I am not talking about that now. I am talking about a taxpayer 
who is at the mercy, some of them have taken their own lives, and 
Congress has been silent for too long.
  Now, yes, we have taken these technicalities and these pursuits of 
criminals, and we have weighed them heavily on the side of the 
criminals, and there is a debate in this House that perhaps was long 
overdue regardless of how you will vote on this issue.
  But what the Traficant amendment says is this is not normal business, 
even under this particular law that is being debated.
  If we continue to open up and give more license to an agency that has 
already turned their back on the Congress, I believe we will fail each 
and every one of our constituents here today. I do not know how many of 
your constituents are going to have their door kicked in or are going 
to be blown up in Waco, TX, and I certainly do not like that, and I 
agree there should be a hearing on what happened to the Weaver family 
in Idaho and what happened out there in Waco.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burton). The time of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Traficant was allowed to proceed for 4 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. But what I am talking to you about today is your 
mother, your father, your grandparents, your children, your neighbor, 
your mailman, the truck drivers, the clearly, and every business, big 
or small, in your district. Every American that is afraid, and even 
afraid to say they are afraid, for every American who has been 
intimidated in some back room, it is legendary.
  So I am not here today citing abuses, and I am not taking off on the 
IRS. What I am saying to you, though, is there is a reasonable level of 
prevention that is necessary when you establish law. And there is a 
prevention element that necessitates this amendment.
  I am asking for your vote. The American people are looking for some 
support from the Congress of the United States, and the American people 
in poll 
[[Page H1391]] after poll say they cannot recognize and understand or 
fathom the thought of Members of Congress wanting to be anonymous, 
having made the statement that, ``It does not pay to go after the 
IRS.'' If you are a Federal judge, why should you? That is a lifetime 
job. Why get the IRS mad?
  ``If you are a Member of the Congress, why get the IRS mad?'' Well, 
damn it, let me tell you the way it is: I am mad as hell. I am prepared 
not to stand for it any longer, and I think every one of your 
constituents feels that way. And I think there are some justifiable 
reasons to vote for this amendment.
  So I am asking the gentleman from West Virginia, the gentlemen from 
Connecticut and Vermont, the gentlewoman from Colorado, the general, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]--because you can 
stand up and probably muster up enough partisan votes to defeat this--I 
am asking you not to do that and to make a sincere effort to keep this 
amendment in conference. I believe the American people deserve this.
  The IRS has taken too much license with regulations that they have 
turned their back on already.
  So with that, I am going to ask this House to give a vote of 
affirmation. I want to place on the record through the legislative 
history that I do not want it to be just an exercise on the floor of 
Congress, that I do want a commitment on the vote of this Congress, if 
it is an affirmation that, as a tenacious bulldog, we will save that 
amendment and keep it in that final law if in fact this becomes final 
law. No reason to obstruct; that is not my purpose. I believe it makes 
good sense. I urge the Members of the Congress of the United States to 
do what is right today and to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose today this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio.
  The reason why is not because I do not think there are problems with 
IRS abuses. The Internal Revenue Service is well known to have had its 
share of those abuses. I am not here to debate the merits or not of 
that question.
  But I oppose this amendment because I think, just as on the previous 
amendment offered here on the floor, there is a great deal of 
misconception about what the effects of the proposed bill and the law 
changes that we are offering in this bill that underlies the debate 
today does and does not do.
  I do not believe that there is any sense whatsoever in making 
exceptions for one Federal law enforcement agency or another in respect 
to what we are doing today that would make any difference at all in the 
conduct of how they carry out the their business.
  In fact, the very point and essence of a lot of debate over this 
exclusionary rule exception is to make clear that there is absolutely 
no change in the constitutional requirements that say that we shall not 
engage in any unlawful search and seizures if we are police of any 
type; there is nothing in this legislation today that is a bit of a 
retreat from that, no relaxation of the general principle of excluding 
from evidence anything where a police officer, knowingly or by 
anybody's objectively reasonable test of that, as a judge in a court 
decides that they violated the Constitution in their proceedings and in 
their actions.
  The whole point of this today is to say, ``Look, if you have done a 
search, whether it is with a warrant or without a warrant, and you with 
a reasonable belief really believe, Mr. Police Officer of any type, 
that what you were doing was legitimate and not a violation of 
someone's constitutional rights, if you believe you followed all the 
steps in the rules and you got a warrant and you thought the warrant 
was good and the warrant was necessitated or you thought that you were 
making a search because on its plain face that that search was 
authorized by the clear precedents of the law in cases where warrants 
are not required under the fourth amendment of the Constitution, if you 
really, according to the judge's view in a case when he is deciding 
whether to admit evidence or exclude it, if he says you exercised a 
reasonably objective belief that what you were doing was right,'' then 
why exclude the evidence? Why exclude the evidence, whether that 
evidence is gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the IRS 
or the Drug Enforcement Administration or anybody else?
  Everybody should be treated the same. The evidence of somebody's 
crime, if they committed a crime or the evidence that would go before a 
court or a jury to decide whether a crime has been committed, should be 
allowed in in every single case if that is valid evidence on the merits 
of the case itself, and let the court decide the guilt or innocence of 
somebody unless--unless the exclusion of that evidence would in some 
way, in some way deter a police officer, IRS officer, a Drug 
Enforcement Administration officer, FBI officer from doing something he 
should do. And there is absolutely nothing whatsoever suggested here by 
what we are doing today that would modify that in any way, that 
principle.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I would be glad to yield to the chairman, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, implicit in this amendment as well 
as in the last one, is a denigration of the Federal bench; an assertion 
that they are incapable of judging whether an acquisition of evidence 
was in good faith, by an objectively reasonable standard; or whether 
the public, the long-suffering, victimized public, is better served by 
the admission of this evidence of guilt or not.
  But to carve out exceptions for various Federal agencies not only is 
insulting to those agencies--and that may or may not be true, but this 
is not the place to direct those insults--but it also demeans the 
bench, the Federal bench. I do not think we should overlook that.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe the 
gentleman is right. I would concur wholeheartedly.
  The whole point of the exercise today in passing this legislation is 
to give relief to the American public in situations where 
technicalities have been throwing out evidence where people otherwise 
should have been given the chance and court should have been given the 
chance to convict the bad guys.
  It is not to try to open the door in any way to reduce or relax the 
standards of the fourth amendment protections against unlawful search 
and seizures. It does not do that. What is good for the goose is good 
for the gander, what is good in one Federal district circuit court 
should be good in another one in this country. There should be 
uniformity. There is not presently.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Chairman, for us to come out and make exceptions for one Federal 
agency or another is just plain nonsense, so I urge a ``no'' vote on 
this amendment. I know it is offered in good faith, but I urge ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members, this amendment, the closer you 
scrutinize it, the more you can get to like it, and I would like to ask 
my colleagues to look very carefully at this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio is known for his very strong 
comments and commentary on the floor, but, if my colleagues examine 
this amendment, they will begin to see what I see in here, that he is 
attempting a carve-out on the McCollum bill, H.R. 666.
  My first amendment to the bill was an attempt at a codification of a 
U.S. Supreme Court decision, a very modest one, when we had begun, and 
they are both working toward the same objective.
  Now the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], said that this vote, a vote for this 
amendment, would denigrate the Federal bench. The Federal bench never 
gets to hear about these 
[[Page H1392]] cases of doors being kicked down or IRS harassing people 
who are trying to settle their accounts.
  Now in my office I have constituents who have been trying to settle 
their accounts, admittedly delinquent, and if there is somebody here 
that has never heard of this, I say to them, you can share some of my 
case load with me. They have been trying to settle their accounts, and 
they will get a call from the agent at IRS telling them that, if they 
do not pay in full, immediately, in 30 days, they are going to padlock 
their dentistry office or they are going to padlock their business, 
which of course is the only way that they can possibly ever pay back on 
installments. I have had that repeatedly brought to my attention, so 
much so that the senior Senator from Michigan has worked with me on 
hearings in previous Congresses and meetings with IRS officials in our 
region.
  So, on behalf of all African-Americans and working class people who 
cannot retain a CPA or an attorney, Mr. Chairman, this carve-out to 
limit this untrammeled authority for an agent to objectively use 
reasonable good faith when he decides whether he is going to padlock 
someone or kick their door down is a very late-coming one, and I am 
sorry that I had not risen to this occasion earlier. The IRS cannot be 
allowed this kind of activity.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope this will spur an investigation in the 
appropriate committee, and I hope it is the Committee on the Judiciary, 
but at the same time let us recognize that if BATF can evade this 
amendment by joining with the FBI or the DEA, would it not be logical 
that we should extend the carve-outs to those other agencies as well, 
because if we do not, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will be getting 
around it by merely cooperating with someone else, including, perhaps, 
the IRS, perhaps not.
  But this amendment on its face, Mr. Chairman, is one that merits our 
colleagues' support. It speaks to a history of misconduct and 
wrongdoing, and I think that it is a commendable amendment, and as the 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am very proud to 
attach my support to it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Fields], and I listened to the debate of the distinguished 
chairman and subcommittee chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and I saw that we just passed a pretty much politically charged vote, 
and I must say the American taxpayers do not have too many powerful 
lobbyists down here. Most people are afraid of the IRS, and most 
average Americans are more or less at their mercy.
  But there is an incident, just occurred here this past month out in 
the district of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo], and the 
IRS basically came to the office of one of the dentists in her 
community and said they were with the IRS, and they wanted to see the 
doctor. They were asked if the doctor was expecting them, and they 
said, ``No, not at all.''
  Mr. Chairman, in the midst of the day's business, the dentist 
office's business, the IRS completely disrupted it, had taken that 
dentist away from where he is doing significant work on the dental 
needs of one of his patients. The IRS has almost limitless powers.
  There are very few opportunities for the Congress of the United 
States to lend a helping hand to these taxpayers. So, Mr. Chairman, 
yes, I could see where a lot of people crossed over and voted on that 
issue that surrounds guns, but there is just not enough advocates for 
the American taxpayer, there is no powerful support for the American 
taxpayer, and that is why I say to my colleagues, to the Congress, that 
the last center of possible support, the last board of grievance and 
appeal, is the Congress of the United States of America, and if the 
Congress of the United States of America can make exception for guns, 
and the popularity of that issue, and the politics of that issue, then 
Congress could do the right thing and support this amendment that in 
fact safeguards the interests of all of our taxpayers, each and every 
one of them.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to give the same speech I gave the last 
time, although it would be equally applicable in the context of this 
amendment. But we are making a mockery of the Constitution, and we just 
did it again when we passed the last amendment. It is not that the 
amendment was bad, but now we have got a different standard applying to 
one law enforcement agency, constitutional standard presumably, than we 
have applying to all other law enforcement agencies, and I have got 
nothing against the Internal Revenue Service, but it seems to me that 
the Internal Revenue Service makes more sense to be exempted than the 
ATF, or whatever it was called, because there are less circumstances 
under which they need to go and kick somebody's door in than the other 
agency.
  The point is it is the underlying bill that is the problem here. It 
is not exempting ATF, or the Internal Revenue Service, or the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the city of Atlanta, or New 
York, or the FBI. The standard ought to be the same, and that standard 
was articulated in 1791 when we passed the first 10 amendments to the 
Constitution. That is the standard that ought to apply, and that is the 
problem that we are into here, and that is the reason that we are 
getting all these inconsistencies, because what we did in 1791 was to 
make one consistent standard, and what my colleagues on the other side 
are trying to do is to get at the bad guys.

                              {time}  1410

  Well, who are the bad guys?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, let me say the gentleman makes a point 
about bad guys, and this bill is targeted toward bad guys. Keep in mind 
that much of the activity covered by this amendment covers civil 
procedures. They are not coming for bad guys. They are using an awful 
lot of law and a lot of leniency under that law in civil proceedings, 
and many times the burden of proof is even on the taxpayer to prove 
they are innocent.
  This is an unbelievable tenet of opposition. Clearly if there is an 
exception, it should deal with the preponderance of the facts that the 
civil proceedings involved here are clearly outside of the view of what 
the main thrust of this bill deals with. You are concerned about 
criminals. We are talking about license in civil process. I think that 
goes too far, which lends to a rational for support for the amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman makes the very point that I am trying to make. This is not 
about bad guys and good guys. What we do when we subvert the 
Constitution of the United States to try to get some bad guys is that 
we subvert the Constitution of the United States for the good guys 
also. We cannot afford to do that. The rules cannot be different for 
one group and another group, because then we have to decide which one 
falls into each of those groups.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to call upon my colleagues to withdraw this bad 
bill. Bet us out of this pointing of fingers and talking about who is 
bad and who is good. All of the American citizens are good, until the 
law says they are bad. We cannot let the police officers on the street 
make that determination, whether they are with the Internal revenue 
Service, the ATF, the Atlanta police office, the D.C. police office, 
whatever. This is about the Constitution. This is not about bad guys 
and good guys.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Traficant amendment. I do want 
to say and to note that while various agencies such as the BATF are 
being asked to abide by higher standards, this is not a commentary on 
the thousands of good, hard-working employees of many of those 
agencies, the DEA, the FBI, the BATF and the Internal Revenue Service, 
because indeed there are thousands of well-meaning, hard-working 
personnel, many of them in the enforcement divisions.
  [[Page H1393]] But unfortunately, occasionally you have a bad apple, 
and that bad apple can spoil the whole barrel and can be the one that 
brings that agency, despite all the hard work that goes in, can bring 
that agency and its employees into disrepute.
  So what this tries to do and what the fourth amendment tries to do is 
say we do not want to make it harder for those genuinely doing their 
work. We also want to make sure there cannot be the occasional abuse, 
or at least we try to limit it as much as possible.
  The distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], pointed to Federal judges as being the safeguard 
and said why would you denigrate Federal judges? No one is denigrating 
the Federal judiciary. As the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
pointed out, many of these cases do not even get there.
  You are trying to devoid those cases getting to the Federal 
judiciary. You are trying to have the occasional Federal judicial 
officer have in the back of their mind this is something you don't do, 
there are sanctions, and it is something prohibited from the beginning 
in the mental process. So that is one reason.
  The second thing is you want to set a standard so you do not get 
these problems to the judiciary, and that standard is what is trying to 
be set here. In the case of the IRS there have been occasional abuses. 
There are a lot of people working hard and doing the processes of 
raising the revenues of our country the way they should, but there have 
been occasional abuses. I have one in my district as well that we have 
worked on for 2 years now.
  But you are saying because there can be the chance for the abuse and 
because it does not handicap the ongoing work of that agency 99 percent 
of the time,
 then indeed they should abide by that higher standard. This body has 
already said there should be a higher standard in the case of BATF. The 
IRS, which reaches every one of our constituents in some way, needs to 
have that higher standard, not to denigrate the work of the IRS or the 
men and women of the IRS, but to say where there are occasionally a few 
bringing down the reputation of an agency, that will be reined in and 
this Congress will demand that they abide by that higher standard. That 
is what this amendment is about, and I would urge its adoption.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to share in the sentiments of the gentleman from 
North Carolina that it is not a question of this amendment or any 
exceptions. The problem is the undermining legislation.
  Any nation, Mr. Chairman, can fight crime, can secure its streets and 
its cities, if it is prepared to compromise the rights of its citizens. 
No totalitarian or authoritarian government has ever feared the 
problems of crime on its streets.
  But the goal has never been simply to secure the streets. It is also 
to have its people secure in their homes, and from their government, 
not just from criminals.
  So the United States has always been different. We have sought to 
protect the innocent while we were prosecuting the guilty. That balance 
has made the United States unique. It is also now at question.
  The underlying legislation, if it means anything, would violate the 
sanctity of the home, the privacy of the family, the right to have a 
wall of protection in the front door of your own house between you and 
the government, to ensure that the only judgment is not the police 
officer as to whether or not your home should be violated, but a judge 
issuing a warrant on probable cause. The very Constitution of the 
United States. And the irony of it is, is that this was one of the 
motivating factors that led to our own revolution, the insistence on 
the part of the British Government of breaking down the doors and 
violating the property rights of our citizens 200 years ago.
  But to add insult to injury, now we are creating two different levels 
of privacy and property rights. If your violation is for tobacco, 
alcohol, or on guns, your rights will be secured. The BATF will not get 
in your home, because the gun lobby would have it be so. But if you are 
a citizen of no particular offense, your wall of privacy is being 
lowered. What a statement to the American people, and what a violation 
of the historic trust and commitment of this institution to our 
constitutional principles.
  Mr. Chairman, our Republican colleagues in the last election have had 
every reason to be proud. They won a tremendous victory. But they did 
not receive a mandate to change the Constitution of the United States, 
to rearrange its powers, or to make our people less secure from a 
government that would abuse their rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot claim to ever have been a conservative Member 
of this House, but I have always respected tenets of Republican 
philosophy, limited government, power in the hands of people, 
controlling the excesses of government authority. Allowing a government 
to enter a home or seize property without warrant, expanding the police 
powers of the government, is an invitation to abuse.
                             {time}   1420

  It is not simply a violation of some of our historic commitments. 
Ironically, it is a departure from the conservative philosophy of the 
very Members who have now won electoral control of this institution.
  Mr. Chairman, our leaders may have failed us in protecting us in 
recent years from crime and the problems of our country, but it is our 
leaders who have failed, not our Constitution. If the country is in 
need, it is our leaders who should change, not our Constitution.
  Because if, my colleagues, we succeed in defeating crime on the 
streets at the cost of criminal activity by our government, then we 
have achieved nothing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order and my demand 
for a recorded vote.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


              amendment offered by Mr. fields of louisiana

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: Page 2, line 
     10, after ``United States'' insert ``if the evidence was 
     obtained in accordance with the fourth amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States''.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we debated for some 
time the Watt-Fields amendment as it relates to the fourth amendment of 
the Constitution. This amendment is similar to that amendment, but, Mr. 
Chairman, I want to make a couple of comments about the amendment 
before I proceed.
  First of all, under the fourth amendment of the Constitution, it says 
in no uncertain terms 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.''
  It does not say ``should not be violated'' or ``ought not be 
violated.'' It says in no uncertain terms that it ``shall not be 
violated.''
  The fourth amendment to the Constitution further states, Mr. 
Chairman, that no warrant, not some warrants, not two or three 
warrants, but it says ``no warrant shall,'' again, the Constitution 
deals with not the permissive language but the mandatory language, 
``shall issue but upon probable cause supported by an oath of 
affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and 
the persons or things to be seized.''
  Now, I did a little further research, Mr. Chairman, and Members, to 
get a good understanding of what shall actually means. According to the 
Webster dictionary, shall is very simple. Shall means will have to. 
Shall means must. Shall means used in laws to express what is 
mandatory.
  So I rise today, Mr. Chairman, to suggest to the House that this 
amendment is a very basic amendment. It 
[[Page H1394]] simply says that any evidence obtained ``in accordance 
with the fourth amendment of the Constitution.''
  If we are going to pass this legislation and allow law enforcement 
officers to go out into the world and break down people's homes without 
a warrant and say, I am operating with reasonable expectations or 
reasonable belief that there is something wrong taking place in the 
household, then we shoot a big bullet in the center of the fourth 
amendment to the Constitution. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, we 
basically silence the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
  So if Members support the fourth amendment of the Constitution, and I 
think we all do, because we all by law, when we took the oath of 
office, said we would, we would support this amendment. It is a very 
simple amendment. If we want someone, a law enforcement officer, to be 
able to walk into our constituent's home by breaking down the doors, 
showing, flashing his or her badge or badges and saying, I am the law 
enforcement officer of this particular city, move over, I am going to 
search all of your personal effects, then vote against this amendment. 
It is very simple. Nothing complicated about it, nothing difficult 
about it.
  But if Members want that law enforcement officer to go to a judge 
which is clothed with the responsibility of looking at the probable 
cause to see if there is enough evidence to support a warrant to be 
issued to search a person's home, then vote for this amendment. It is a 
very simple amendment, nothing complicated about it.
  If we want to go back to the western days, where people break down 
doors and take people's assets and nothing is done about it, then I 
would suggest that Members not vote for this amendment.
  Let me make another point, Mr. Chairman. Someone made the statement 
that, well, if someone breaks in a person's home and they find no 
evidence and they have not violated any law, then no harm is done. I 
beg to
 differ with my colleagues on that.

  There is a lot of harm that is being done when you break down a 
person's home and go through all their personal effects, finding 
evidence or not finding evidence. You have violated somebody's right to 
privacy. That is one of the most sacred amendments to this 
Constitution. And to allow law enforcement officers to do that and then 
exempt one or two agencies to me is asinine, unconscionable, 
unbelievable, to say the least.
  So I would certainly urge my colleagues, in the interest of justice 
and fair play, please, the worst thing we want to do this session of 
Congress is to violate our own contract, our own Constitution, the one 
we held our hands up before the American people and said we will 
uphold. This bill destroys the fourth amendment of the Constitution. 
There is no question about that.
  I want to be able to leave this institution, leave this Congress and 
go home tonight and have a sense of security in my own home and not 
worry about some Rambo cop busting down the door and saying this 
Congress gave them the right to do it. That is wrong. There is not a 
Member on this side or the other side that can argue the fact that this 
amendment does not do that.
  Now, they may argue, well, if it is unconstitutional, the courts will 
hold it to be unconstitutional. Why would we pass a law that we know 
good and well is unconstitutional. Why would we even opine the thought 
that the American people ought not have the rights that are afforded 
them under the Constitution of the United States of America.
  I beg of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they really 
want to do something to secure people in their homes, yes, we have a 
crime problem in America. There is no question about it. There is a 
crime problem in my own district, in my own State, but it is not to the 
extent that we ought to take away people's individual constitutional 
rights.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is onto something we all would 
agree with in principle, but I think how he has crafted this amendment 
makes it fatally defective or at least it makes it ambiguous enough 
that this side cannot accept it.
  What I have stated in the past and did yesterday to the gentleman 
from Louisiana as well as to others is that I would have no problem 
accepting and our side would have no problem accepting what was printed 
in the Record as amendment No. 1 by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] that would read at the end of the bill ``nothing in this 
section shall be construed so as to violate the fourth article of the 
amendments to the Constitution of the United States.''
  That would be perfectly acceptable. This particular amendment being 
placed where it is in the context of the lines that read, evidence 
which was obtained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be 
excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States, and then with 
these words ``if the evidence was obtained in accordance with the 
fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States,'' and then 
goes on and on and on and leaves the clear implication that there can 
be no exclusionary rule because the very nature of the rule is to apply 
in situations where there has been a violation of the fourth amendment.
  That is why we need it. That is why we need a good faith exception to 
this whole process.
  It would in essence nullify the good faith exception in warrant 
cases, in my judgment.

                              {time}  1430

  We would have an exclusionary rule that excluded it clearly from day 
one, and there would be no exceptions to it. One could go on and read 
the rest of it, since it is placed in the middle of it and nothing is 
stricken, as saying that it is then further modified. But I would 
suggest that the fact that there was such ambiguity here, courts could 
interpret this any number of ways, that it makes no sense to posture 
this in the location the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] that I 
presume in good conscience is attempting to do.
  I do not understand why we do not offer the original language of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] if the gentleman wants to do 
that, at the end of the legislation where he places it that does what I 
think the gentleman wants us to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this amendment be withdrawn and 
that the other one be substituted in its place, but I am not going to 
offer anything out here today to do it. I am going to oppose this 
amendment in its present form, but I would accept, as I say, the words 
``Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to violate the 
fourth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States'' 
if it were offered at the end of the bill, as the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] does in what he printed in the Record a few days 
ago.
  Without that, Mr. Chairman, I just think the gentleman created an 
ambiguity that could defeat the whole good faith language that the 
courts already adopted for warrant searches, searches with warrants, as 
well as searches without them. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am 
opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, almost 24 hours ago I stood in the well of this House 
and I talked about an amendment that would take us back to the fourth 
amendment to the Constitution. Colleagues on the other side said ``No, 
we cannot support you, because you strike the rest of our bill out. If 
you would just craft this in such a way that you did not strike the 
rest of the bill, this would be acceptable to us.''
  They voted against the wording of the fourth amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, almost 24 hours later, we are back here having 
essentially the same debate, different language. This language does not 
strike one word out of the underlying bill. All it says is it is going 
to be subject to the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  However, again, my colleagues are back saying ``Oh, no, picky, picky, 
picky. I can't agree with that either, it has to be drafted some other 
way.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is an open rule we are operating under, they say. 
Anybody who wants to come in and offer an amendment can offer an 
amendment to 
[[Page H1395]] say whatever they wanted to say. Yet, my colleagues on 
the other side say ``Oh, no, you have not been able to draft it in such 
a way that is satisfactory to us yet. There is some language out there 
somewhere that will satisfy us,'' but 24 hours almost has passed and 
they have not drafted it. All they want to do is come back in and say 
``Oh, no, your language is not good enough.''
  Mr. Chairman, Madison and Webster drafted the language of the fourth 
amendment, or whoever the Founding Fathers were who were working on 
that particular portion of it. I wish that these new masters of the 
Constitution, these master draftspersons who drafted this artistic 
Contract With America, would draft some language that would be 
satisfactory to them, that would not trample on the Founding Fathers' 
language.
  It is not doing my constituents or the American people any good to 
say ``Oh, no, this is not good enough, we need a comma here or a period 
there, or a T crossed here or an I dotted there.'' If they believe in 
the Constitution, draft the language, give it to us. I invited them to 
do it yesterday. I have not seen it yet.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the language I do not have to draft. I 
read it to the gentleman, and it is printed in the Congressional 
Record.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman, offer it. I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will do 
it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman offers it, if he votes 
this one down, let him offer some amendment that will make this 
constitutional, and then maybe we can talk about supporting it, Mr. 
Chairman.
  However, do not come in here and say ``Oh, no, yesterday you struck 
the rest of my bill.'' This does not strike one iota of his bill, yet 
it is still not satisfactory to him. If he wants something, draft it 
and put it in and let us talk about it. That is what this House is all 
about. That is what we came here for. But do not be picayune with me.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in vehement opposition to H.R. 666, the 
exclusionary rule, and urge my colleagues to reject such a blatant 
attempt to eradicate one of the most fundamental constitutional 
protections afforded all Americans, the prohibition against 
unreasonable searches and seizures by the Government that is so 
precisely spelled out in our fourth amendment.
  This misguided bill highlights the GOP's disconnect with the American 
people, and it is just one more example that the leadership's so-called 
contract is, to borrow a phrase from well-known cereal advertisers, 
chock full of nuts.
  Under this bill, as astonishing and unbelievable as it may seem, 
evidence that is illegally obtained by law enforcement officials 
without the aid of a search warrant would be admissible in Federal 
trial proceedings.
  If this not a complete and total affront to both the spirit and 
intent of the founding document of our great democracy, I do not know 
what is.
  Let me give the Members an example of what I am talking about. About 
a year or so ago in my district the BATF and some local law enforcement 
officials entered into some HUD-owned Chicago Housing Authority 
property in my district in the city of Chicago and knocked down the 
doors. They said they were looking for guns.
  What happened as a result of that? They found a number of assault 
weapons that they were looking for, but in addition to that, they went 
into the homes of a number of people, and they did not find any weapons 
there. What they found instead was terrified children.
  Imagine, here you are in your home, little kids running around in 
there, somebody comes in and knocks on your door, bursts their way in 
with ``ATF'' on the back, with ``Chicago Police'' on their shoulders, 
et cetera, guns all ready to be drawn, little kids sitting there 
screaming, and law enforcement officers are running through people's 
houses, ransacking through their dresser drawers, through their 
closets, up under their beds and anyplace else they thought there might 
be a weapon to be found.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a tremendous amount of terror that you can give 
anybody, but particularly to young children. To have this kind of thing 
happen without a search warrant, without cause, was beyond all realism 
whatsoever. I just could not believe it was happening, but it did 
happen. It happened in my district of Chicago.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a crime bill here, yes, but we are 
also talking about crimes that the Federal Government and others can 
perpetrate on people. It is not right for the police to do that. It is 
not right for the IRS to do that. It is not right for agencies to do 
that.
  If it is a crime, it is a crime for them to commit a crime as well, 
without probable cause.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Supreme Court has continually and consistently 
refused to adopt such sweeping exceptions to the exclusionary rule as 
those that are embodied in this legislation before us today.
  H.R. 666 would not only render the exclusionary rule, and therefore, 
the most basic rights of all of our citizens, moot, but also provide a 
disincentive for police officers to follow the dictates of the law.
  By allowing courts to admit evidence gathered in the case of 
warrantless searches, this body would be giving law enforcement 
officials the mere option of following legal search and seizure 
requirements or not.
  In fact, there would be much less incentive on the part of officers 
to even obtain warrants, knowing that the courts would be lenient, as 
far as they are concerned.
  As the high court has so eloquently stated, and as so many of my 
colleagues have so eloquently stated on this floor yesterday and today, 
a strong exclusionary rule is required to enforce the right of all 
Americans ``to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects 
against unreasonable searches and seizures.''
                              {time}  1440

  Sweeping exceptions to this rule would, quoting again the Supreme 
Court, ``permit that right to remain an empty promise,'' an empty 
promise.
  Mr. Chairman, the absolute last thing I would want to see is our 
Constitution reduced to an empty promise.
  It strikes me as peculiar that the GOP, the Republican majority, will 
shroud itself in the second amendment as a defense to the weak, tired, 
worn-out line that all Americans have an unrestricted right to own a 
deadly arsenal of assault weapons, but then will turn right around and 
support legislation such as H.R. 666 which so obviously guts the fourth 
amendment's civil liberties protections upon which all our citizens 
have come to rely.
  Mr. Chairman, it is becoming increasingly clear that my Republican 
colleagues are quick to invoke the constitutional principles and the 
wisdom of the Founding Fathers whenever it suits their political whims 
but completely disregard it when the rights of average Americans like 
my constituents and like yours, Mr. Chairman, and all the rest of our 
constituents are at stake, as in this case. This is no way to legislate 
and the citizens of the country I believe clearly see through this 
charade.
  I would again urge my colleagues to vote no on this turkey, thereby 
preventing unfounded invasions of privacy and constitutional rights 
violations against all our constituents. We cannot and simply must not 
allow this 100-day agenda to undo 200 years of democracy.


  amendment offered by mr. mccollum as a substitute for the amendment 
                   offered by mr. fields of louisiana

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: Page 3, line 
     12, strike ``Rule'' and insert ``Rules''.
       Page 3, line 14, after ``proceeding.'' insert ``Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed 
     [[Page H1396]] so as to violate the fourth article of 
     amendments to the Constitution of the United States.''.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this does what we said we would do all 
along if the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] had offered it. It 
is what he had printed in the Record a couple of days ago.
  It provides what seems to me to be on its face the clear language 
that any of us would know is true and, that is, that nothing in this 
legislation that we are proposing in any way violates the fourth 
amendment to the Constitution. We have no problem with that. That is 
all that this amendment says. It does not say anything more, it does 
not say anything less. It should not be construed as saying anything 
more or anything less, but it is placed in simple language, it is 
placed at the end of the bill. It does not mess up the rest of it. It 
keep the good faith exception expansion that we want in this bill 
intact.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to accept this, I hope 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] could accept it and we could 
move on.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Can the gentleman explain what is the 
difference between the two amendments, because it appears, based on his 
dissertation, there is no difference between the amendment that I have 
and the substitute amendment that he just introduced.
  Would the gentleman please explain?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If I can reclaim my time, I would be glad to. There is 
no real difference in intent. I am sure you intend to do exactly as I 
have suggested. It is just that where you had placed what you had 
written could be construed in my judgment and by others over on this 
side of the aisle in a way that you did not intend, in a way that would 
actually end, by some court interpretation in the future, those kinds 
of good-faith exceptions we already have in search warrant cases. I do 
not think you intended that. If you do it this way, then there is no 
ambiguity, there is no question for the courts to interpret. It is just 
a lot cleaner.
  That is what I think the gentleman wants and I do not have a problem 
with what you want to do if that is what you want, as I believe it is.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am very appreciative of the accord here. Could this be 
known as the McCollum-Fields substitute amendment?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I would be delighted if it were known as the McCollum-
Fields-Conyers substitute amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. I did not suggest that.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan wrote it, so 
I would be glad to give him credit.
  Does anyone else want time? Otherwise, I hope the gentleman would 
accept this.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
further?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I have not had an opportunity to see the 
amendment, but it is the exact amendment that we had on this side of 
the aisle?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, it is the exact amendment that was 
published by your side of the aisle under the name of the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] as amendment No. 1 in the Congressional 
Record of February 6, 1995.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I was just looking at the 
language, and it refers to section rather than bill. There are several 
sections in this bill, and what I am trying to be clear on is that your 
language applies to the entire bill, not just to one particular section 
of the bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Well, this entire bill refers to an entirely new 
section of the code, section 3510, and I think that that is the key to 
this and that is what this applies to. That is virtually the entire 
bill. What we talking about is amendment chapter 223 of title 18 and 
this is an entirely new section, section 3510, we are creating by this 
piece of legislation. That is what this applies to, the entire new 
section.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that on all 
subsequent amendments to this one, for the remainder of the bill, there 
be a time limit of 5 minutes of debate on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. On this amendment and any subsequent amendments 
thereto?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Not on this amendment but on any subsequent amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. And on all amendments thereto?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. serrano

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Serrano: Page 3, line 14, strike 
     the close quotation mark and the period which follows.
       Page 3, after line 14, insert the following:
       ``(e) Limitation.--This section shall not apply with 
     respect to a search or seizure carried out by, or under the 
     authority of, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment, and a Member in opposition 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for that purpose.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we can notice by the amendments that have been 
submitted here today, there are two issues that are being discussed. 
One is the belief by many of us that in fact the bill presented by the 
majority strikes down most if not all of the protections of the fourth 
amendment. But in addition, some agencies have been singled out by 
these amendments because they are, unfortunately, agencies with either 
a reputation of misusing their power or, and in most cases, a 
reputation of striking fear into the hearts of hard-working, law-
abiding American citizens and in many cases, or in most cases, both.
  There is no reason that one can imagine why an American citizen or a 
resident of this country should be afraid of any of its Federal 
agencies. Yet that is the case in so many instances. That is why today 
you have seen people discussing so many different agencies.
  The INS is, in many neighborhoods in this country, at the top of the 
list of the kind of an agency that can strike fear into the hearts of 
people. Because when the INS decides that it has cause to believe that 
there is illegal immigration taking place or has taken place in a 
certain neighborhood, the INS does not stop to ask questions and to 
determine who they should go after and who should be protected under 
our Constitution. What the INS usually does is walk into a neighborhood 
where the color of the people's skin or the language they speak appears 
to indicate that illegal immigrants could be in fact living in that 
community, and they will tear down a business door, they will tear down 
a home, they will tear down the privacy of a family or an 
[[Page H1397]] individual searching, if you will, searching for illegal 
immigrants.
  We have seen this throughout our communities, most recently in the 
northern Manhattan section of Washington Heights where reports took 
place, where bodego owners, grocery store owners were illegally 
confronted by the Immigration Department in a desire to determine 
whether or not there were illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, 
in that community.
  So for anyone in my community, whether they were born American 
citizens or not, this Federal agency is one that strikes fear into our 
hearts. And incidentally, someone may say, ``Well, if you've got 
nothing to hide, you should not be afraid.''
                              {time}  1450

  That is not the case. If you look like a certain person, if you have 
the first name of Jose, you can be sure that you will run into the INS 
at one time in your life and they will not give you any way to explain 
yourself. They will just ask you some very hard questions.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the 
Government Operations Committee had hearings on the INS in the last 
Congress with harassed African-American and other minorities and women 
officers, and the gentleman's amendment and the discussion that 
surrounds it flows exactly with what we heard. I would refer every 
Member here to the Government Operations hearings on INS in the 103d 
Congress. It is a very dangerous instrumentality.
  There are a lot of good people. I love the commissioner, the 
director, but it still is not under control and the gentleman's 
amendment is very good and I accept it on this side.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman very much.
  The gentleman's comments obviously fall right to the point that there 
has been ample proof that this Federal agency has not carried out its 
duties in a proper way, and when they do not carry them out in a proper 
way, I think it becomes the role of this body to protect our citizens. 
I think that is a point that should be made.
  In many instances the violation of rights and privileges are 
committed upon citizens of the United States, the illegal searches, the 
fear, the attacks, the midnight raids, the middle of the night raids, 
the lack of respect for individual rights.
  If the folks on the other side really believe that their bill is a 
good bill, and if they believe that they have not in fact trampled, as 
I believe, on the fourth amendment, there should be no problem in 
accepting this amendment. This amendment simply will strengthen their 
belief that the fourth amendment is still intact, and I would urge a 
``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum] is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept this amendment. I did not accept the 
other two amendments that were passed that exempted a whole host of 
Federal law enforcement officials from the opportunity to have the 
Federal court exclude evidence that they obtain which may be in 
violation of the fourth amendment but was obtained without any intent 
on their part to violate, without any knowledge they were doing it, and 
with no good reason that I can think of for us to be excluding it from 
court proceedings where convictions could otherwise be obtained for bad 
guys and people who have committed major crimes in this country. There 
is no reason to want to exempt these folks.
  We are not doing anything with this bill that would in any way reduce 
protections individuals have from illegal searches and seizures. We may 
all be angry at some of these agencies for one reason or another, 
because they have overstepped their bounds. I do not think there is a 
single police agency in this country that has not had somebody at some 
point overstep their bounds in the history of these agencies. It 
probably has happened more than once for most of them, and in some too 
frequently, and nobody condones that, not good police, not you, not the 
President, not the Governors of the States, nobody condones them 
overstepping the bounds and violating the protection of our citizenry 
under the fourth amendment.
  The question is what is the best way to proceed to correct those 
problems, and it certainly is not in keeping out evidence of criminals 
that will prohibit their being convicted when they should be, when the 
evidence is perfectly good itself.
  Why do we want to prohibit somebody from going to jail who has 
committed a bad crime in the name of stopping something that is not 
going to be stopped? If a police officer, INS or anybody else does not 
know they are doing anything wrong and a judge decides that they do not 
know, and they could not know, and there is no reason for a reasonable 
person to ever know they did anything wrong, then there is no deterrent 
whatsoever to the behavior they have done. They are going to do it 
every time. We need to find other ways to stop it, but the only way we 
want to stop is where it is antagonizing being done in violation of the 
Constitution and trampling, and as the Founding Fathers wanted us to do 
to protect it. It makes no sense to penalize the general public of the 
United States by allowing more criminals out on the streets as are now 
being allowed on technicalities by the situation that exists today.
  We need to carve out an exception to the exclusionary rule that is 
even broader than the courts have accepted today. That is what this 
bill does. Where a police officer of any type, be he INS or otherwise, 
acts in good faith and believes, and reasonably and objectively by a 
judge's decision believes, and is determined to believe that what he is 
doing is right and correct and not violative of the fourth amendment, 
and why in the world would anybody want to exclude any evidence? The 
gentleman has every right to protest INS like others protested other 
agencies of the Federal Government.
  I submit this bill is not the place for that. It does not do us any 
good and it does damage to the fundamental underlying principle of this 
bill, this effort to create a better protection of our American 
citizenry.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the author of 
the amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. With all due respect to the gentleman, the reason for 
the protection that I try to put forth, a reason that the gentleman may 
probably never experience or has ever experienced in his life, is the 
fact that there are some Federal authorities that upon looking at some 
American citizens determine, assume that that person does not belong in 
this country, simply by the way they look, simply by their first name 
or their last name or the fact that they may not have fully mastered 
the English language. This simply says give me the protection that I 
deserve as an American citizen.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If I can reclaim my time, I would simply say to the 
gentleman no, fortunately I have not had that personal experience. I do 
not doubt for a moment that goes on but that is not a remedy for that.
  What the gentleman is doing makes an exception to this bill of a 
whole entire agency and their efforts at law enforcement. That makes no 
sense whatsoever. It undermines the purposes of this bill and it is not 
in the interests, as far as I am concerned, of the general public where 
we are trying to get more convictions where somebody commits a crime. 
And I do not care, if they have committed a crime, we ought to get them 
convicted and we have the evidence to do it. We have no business 
excepting an agency, particularly INS, from that, particularly where we 
have alien smuggling and all kinds of stuff the Immigration Service is 
having to investigate. I would suggest it is not in the best interest 
of aliens, legal aliens coming here to have this provision, and those 
who would be citizens and would make great contributions to this 
country, it is not in their best interests to allow the criminals in 
the world to 
[[Page H1398]] prey on those who are unfortunately in their midst.
  So I urge a rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Serrano].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 103, 
noes 330, not voting 1, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 102]

                               AYES--103

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--330

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     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
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     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
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     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
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     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
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     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--1

       
       Dooley
       

                              {time}  1516

  Messrs. MONTGOMERY, ACKERMAN, and de la GARZA, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr. 
GONZALEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. FURSE and Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 666, 
the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act. While its supporters would have us 
believe that this bill will simply broaden a previously existing 
exception to the fourth amendment, it will, in reality, seriously 
damage a constitutional amendment that has protected Americans from 
unreasonable searches and seizures for over 200 years.
  Simply put, Mr. Chairman, the fourth amendment places a check on the 
ability of the Government to arbitrarily search a person's home or 
person by requiring that a search warrant be issued by a neutral and 
detached magistrate. Since 1914, the Supreme Court has held that 
evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search must be excluded 
at trial.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 666 removes this important constitutional 
safeguard by virtually eliminating the warrant requirement that the 
American Colonists demanded of the Constitution's Framers following 
their occupation by British soldiers. In spite of these origins, the 
fourth amendment has, in no way, lost its historical or legal 
relevancy. We need only look at the documented abuses from law 
enforcement jurisdictions all over the country to reaffirm the inherent 
protective value of the fourth amendment.
  If by congressional mandate, the courts begin to admit evidence 
gathered in good faith but without a search warrant, there would be 
much less incentive for the police to obtain search warrants at all--
thereby undermining the fundamental protection of the fourth amendment 
to the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, the exclusionary rule is what protects all Americans 
against unreasonable searches and seizures and the invasion of privacy 
by law enforcement officers. It does not undermine the ability of the 
police to enforce the law; indeed, it has been part of the training 
given to all Federal law enforcement agents since 1914. The Directors 
of the FBI have endorsed the exclusionary rule and have stated that the 
rule does not hinder the FBI's work.
  Mr. Chairman, the exclusionary rule works because it creates an 
incentive for law enforcement officers to know legal search and seizure 
standards. By passing this bill, law enforcement will actually have an 
incentive not to know the law.
  In the rush to pass their legislative agenda in the first 100 days, 
the authors of this bill are asking us to sacrifice the constitutional 
safeguards that have protected all Americans for 207 years.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this attack on the fourth 
amendment and vote ``no'' on H.R. 666.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 666, 
the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995. Let me state from the 
beginning that I recognize the challenge we face in curbing crime in 
our Nation. In fact, I have been a longstanding advocate for 
substantial congressional action to reduce and prevent violence and 
crime. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this measure before 
us today because the very belief upon which our judicial system was 
created--protection of individual constitutional rights balanced with 
society's right to be free from harm--has yet to be achieved for many 
Americans.
  Over the years, I have been a staunch supporter of crime control 
measures. I have patrolled our streets as part of Neighborhood Watch 
efforts. I have seen firsthand the effects that drugs and violence have 
had on our neighborhoods. Before I came to Congress I 
[[Page H1399]] was blessed with the opportunity to practice law in this 
great Nation. I have litigated civil rights issues before many courts. 
One of my most memorable experience is having argued Terry v. Ohio, 392 
U.S. 1 before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. Because of these 
experiences, I feel that I cannot support the unbalanced approach that 
H.R. 666 represents.
  While I agree that strong measures must be taken to curb the crime 
epidemic, I do not believe that such measures should undermine any 
individual's basic rights and constitutional liberties. My duty as a 
Member of Congress requires that I act in the best interest of the 
people I represent and in the best interest of the U.S. Constitution I 
have sworn to uphold. We cannot, and should not, in an attempt to 
facilitate the prosecution of alleged criminals, be unfaithful to our 
responsibility to act in the best interest of the American people by 
disrespecting the founding document of this Nation--the fourth 
amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This shortsighted legislation will 
not only compromise Americans' constitutional rights, but will actually 
do very little to reduce crime or enhance the prosecution of crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, the exclusionary rule was created in Weeks v. United 
States, 232 U.S. 383 (1994), where Justice William Day's opinion for a 
unanimous court concluded that the use of illegally obtained evidence 
by the Government was a clear ``denial of the constitutional rights of 
the accused'' (p. 398). The exclusionary rule was fashioned by the 
Supreme Court as the enforcement mechanism of the fourth amendment, 
which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 
exclusionary rule embodies our national principle of respect for the 
fundamental inalienable rights of all our citizens under the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Since 1914, the exclusionary rule as we know it today is a mere 
shadow of the rule envisioned in the Weeks opinion. Over the years, the 
U.S. Supreme Court has established exceptions to the rule that have 
permitted more and more illegally obtained evidence to be used against 
accused criminals. One of the most prominent exceptions to the 
exclusionary rule is the good faith exception created by the court in 
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
  We must all remember that the fourth amendment, working in 
conjunction with the exclusionary rule, represents significant 
constitutional protection for anyone accused of a crime. As you know, 
being accused does not mean that you are guilty. Yet, the drafters of 
this current legislation, in their haste to sweep up criminals, have 
presented a law that treats the accused as if they were guilty. No 
American deserves to be treated as a criminal without the benefit of a 
trial.
  Contrary to the assertions of the proponents of this legislation, the 
application of the exclusionary rule almost never prevents the 
prosecution of a case against an accused. A 1983 study by Thomas Y. 
Davies, entitled, ``A Hard Look at What We Know (and Still Need To 
Learn) About the `Costs' of the Exclusionary Rule'' (1983), estimates 
that only 0.6 to 2.35 percent of all felony arrests are lost as a 
result of this rule. Thus the challenge to the exclusionary rule based 
on the risk of lost arrests is fueled by an ideological agenda that is 
hostile to our freedoms ensured by the fourth amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today, the Exclusionary Rule Reform 
Act of 1995, codifies the good faith exception to the exclusionary 
rule, but will also make it more broad. Such an abdication of 
congressional responsibility will certainly undermine many of our most 
important efforts to protect the Constitutional rights of all 
Americans.
  The stated purpose of the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act if to provide 
a statutory basis for the good faith exception in cases of searches 
with and without warrants. Under the good faith exception, evidence 
obtained in a search or seizure that violates constitutional 
protections would not be excluded if ``the search or seizure was 
carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable 
belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment'' to the 
Constitution.
  The legislation to limit citizens' fourth amendment rights warps the 
Constitution to such an extent that the constitutionality of this 
provision is seriously in question. While I agree that Congress should 
continue to make significant strides to reduce crime, this proposed 
measure goes well beyond the legitimate objective of crime prevention 
and prosecution enhancement. In fact, this bill is specifically 
designed to inhibit the constitutional rights of the people of America 
by violating their fourth amendment rights. Justice Douglas eloquently 
warned us of the dangers involved in compromising the fourth amendment 
in his dissenting opinion in Terry versus Ohio:

       To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to 
     take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a 
     step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. 
     But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the 
     people through a constitutional amendment.

  Millions of arrests and searches are carried out by police each year 
in the United States. The fourth amendment, with its ban on 
unreasonable searches and seizures, is the constitutional provision 
that, more directly than any other, governs police conduct. This 
amendment is designed to preserve the most cherished values of a free 
society by striking a fair balance between society's demand for order, 
and individual rights.
  It is my belief that our judicial system's major focus should be to 
protect its citizens from crime and violence. However, as a nation, we 
cannot afford to compromise our Constitutional rights in exchange for 
unconstitutional, excessive police state tactics. We all have an 
obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of all 
Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I urge my 
colleagues to uphold our Constitution, protect the American people, and 
vote down this unconscionable invasion upon one of their most priceless 
constitutional guarantees.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule the 
Committee now rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hobson) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 
61, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments 
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate voice demanded on any amendment?
  If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the request for a recorded vote.
                              {time}  1520

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The Chair advises the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] that a recorded vote has already been 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 289, 
noes 142, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 103]

                               AYES--289

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     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
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     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
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     [[Page H1400]] Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     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
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--142

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crapo
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cunningham
     Dixon
     Gekas

                              {time}  1537

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. COSTELLO changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________