datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
or testimony heard, pursuant to this section shall be main-
tained to the greatest extent possible, and such records may
be filed or testimony heard in camera.
‘‘(3) If the victim’s losses are not ascertainable by the
date that is 10 days prior to sentencing as provided in
paragraph (1), the United States Attorney (or the United
States Attorney’s delegee) shall so inform the court, and the
court shall set a date for the final determination of the vic-
tim’s losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing. If the
victim subsequently discovers further losses, the victim shall
have 60 days after discovery of those losses in which to peti-
tion the court for an amended restitution order. Such order
may be granted only upon a showing of good cause for the
failure to include such losses in the initial claim for
restitutionary relief.
‘‘(4) The court may refer any issue arising in connec-
tion with a proposed order of restitution to a magistrate
or special master for proposed findings of fact and rec-
ommendations as to disposition, subject to a de novo deter-
mination of the issue by the court.
‘‘(e) Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of
restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponder-
ance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the
amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the
offense shall be on the attorney for the Government. The
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 666
AN ACT
To control crime by exclusionary rule reform.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Exclusionary Rule Re-
form Act of 1995’’.
SEC. 2. ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 223 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing:
HR 666 EH
‘‘§ 3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search
or seizure
‘‘(a) EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY OBJECTIVELY REA-
SONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE.—Evidence which is ob-
tained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be ex-
cluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States
on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation
of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, if the search or seizure was carried out in cir-
cumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that
it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact
that evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the
scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of the
existence of such circumstances.
‘‘(b) EVIDENCE NOT EXCLUDABLE BY STATUTE OR
RULE.—
‘‘(1) GENERALLY.—Evidence shall not be ex-
cluded in a proceeding in a court of the United
States on the ground that it was obtained in viola-
tion of a statute, an administrative rule or regula-
tion, or a rule of procedure unless exclusion is ex-
pressly authorized by statute or by a rule prescribed
by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory author-
ity.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO OBJECTIVELY
REASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.—Evidence
HR 666 EH
which is otherwise excludable under paragraph (1)
shall not be excluded if the search or seizure was
carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively
reasonable belief that the search or seizure was in
conformity with the statute, administrative rule or
regulation, or rule of procedure, the violation of
which occasioned its being excludable.
‘‘(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section shall
not be construed to require or authorize the exclusion of
evidence in any proceeding. Nothing in this section shall
be construed so as to violate the fourth article of amend-
ments to the Constitution of the United States.
‘‘(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.
‘‘(e) 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.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 223 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure.’’.
HR 666 EH
Passed the House of Representatives February 8,
1995.
Attest:
Clerk.
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 666
AN ACT
To control crime by exclusionary rule reform.
I
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 666
To control crime by exclusionary rule reform.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 25, 1995
Mr. MCCOLLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To control crime by exclusionary rule reform.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Exclusionary Rule Re-
form Act of 1995’’.
SEC. 2. ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 223 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing:
‘‘§ 3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search
or seizure
‘‘(a) EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY OBJECTIVELY REA-
SONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE.—Evidence which is ob-
tained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be ex-
cluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States
on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation
of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, if the search or seizure was carried out in cir-
cumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that
it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact
that evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the
scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of the
existence of such circumstances.
‘‘(b) EVIDENCE NOT EXCLUDABLE BY STATUTE OR
RULE.—
‘‘(1) GENERALLY.—Evidence shall not be ex-
cluded in a proceeding in a court of the United
States on the ground that it was obtained in viola-
tion of a statute, an administrative rule or regula-
tion, or a rule of procedure unless exclusion is ex-
pressly authorized by statute or by a rule prescribed
by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory author-
ity.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO OBJECTIVELY
REASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.—Evidence
which is otherwise excludable under paragraph (1)
shall not be excluded if the search or seizure was
carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively
reasonable belief that the search or seizure was in
conformity with the statute, administrative rule or
regulation, or rule of procedure, the violation of
which occasioned its being excludable.
‘‘(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section shall
not be construed to require or authorize the exclusion of
evidence in any proceeding.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 223 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure.’’.
Æ
IIA
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 666
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
FEBRUARY 9 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
AN ACT
To control crime by exclusionary rule reform.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Exclusionary Rule Re-
form Act of 1995’’.
SEC. 2. ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 223 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing:
HR 666 RFS
Passed the House of Representatives February 8,
1995.
Attest:
ROBIN H. CARLE,
Clerk.
IB
Union Calendar No. 7
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 666
[Report No. 104–17]
To control crime by exclusionary rule reform.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 25, 1995
Mr. MCCOLLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
FEBRUARY 2, 1995
Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
and ordered to be printed
A BILL
To control crime by exclusionary rule reform.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Exclusionary Rule Re-
form Act of 1995’’.
HR 666 RH
SEC. 2. ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 223 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing:
‘‘§ 3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search
or seizure
‘‘(a) EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY OBJECTIVELY REA-
SONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE.—Evidence which is ob-
tained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be ex-
cluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States
on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation
of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, if the search or seizure was carried out in cir-
cumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that
it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact
that evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the
scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of the
existence of such circumstances.
‘‘(b) EVIDENCE NOT EXCLUDABLE BY STATUTE OR
RULE.—
‘‘(1) GENERALLY.—Evidence shall not be ex-
cluded in a proceeding in a court of the United
States on the ground that it was obtained in viola-
tion of a statute, an administrative rule or regula-
tion, or a rule of procedure unless exclusion is ex-
pressly authorized by statute or by a rule prescribed
HR 666 RH
by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory author-
ity.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO OBJECTIVELY
REASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.—Evidence
which is otherwise excludable under paragraph (1)
shall not be excluded if the search or seizure was
carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively
reasonable belief that the search or seizure was in
conformity with the statute, administrative rule or
regulation, or rule of procedure, the violation of
which occasioned its being excludable.
‘‘(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section shall
not be construed to require or authorize the exclusion of
evidence in any proceeding.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 223 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure.’’.
Union Calendar No. 7
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 666
[Report No. 104–17]
A BILL
To control crime by exclusionary rule reform.
FEBRUARY 2, 1995
Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HR 694 RS
TITLE II—MISCELLANEOUS SPECIFIC
PARK AMENDMENTS
SEC. 201. ADVISORY COMMISSIONS.
(a) KALOKO-HONOKOHAU
NATIONAL
HISTORICAL
PARK.—(1) This subsection may be cited as the ‘‘Na Hoa
Pili Kaloko-Honokohau Re-establishment Act of 1995’’.
(2) Notwithstanding section 505(f)(7) of Public Law
95–625 (16 U.S.C. 396d(7)), the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-
Honokohau, 
the 
Advisory 
Commission 
for 
Kaloko-
Honokohau National Historical Park, is hereby re-estab-
lished in accordance with section 505(f), as amended by
paragraph (3) of this section.
(3) Section 505(f)(7) of Public Law 95–625 (16 U.S.C.
396d(7)), is amended by striking ‘‘this Act’’ and inserting
in lieu thereof, ‘‘the Na Hoa Pili Kaloko-Honokohau Re-
establishment Act of 1995’’.
(b) WOMEN’S RIGHTS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.—
(1) This subsection may be cited as the ‘‘Women’s Rights
National Historical Park Advisory Commission Re-estab-
lishment Act of 1995’’.
(2) Notwithstanding section 1601(h)(5) of Public Law
96–607 (16 U.S.C. 410ll(h)(5)), the advisory commission
for Women’s Rights National Historical Park is hereby re-
established in accordance with section 1601(h), as amended
by paragraph (3) of this section.
impact on public safety or the operation of a crimi-
nal justice system caused by the relief.
‘‘(2) PRISON POPULATION REDUCTION RELIEF.—
In any civil action with respect to prison conditions,
the court shall not grant or approve any relief whose
purpose or effect is to reduce or limit the prison pop-
ulation, unless the plaintiff proves that crowding is
the primary cause of the deprivation of the Federal
right and no other relief will remedy that depriva-
tion.
‘‘(b) TERMINATION OF RELIEF.—
‘‘(1) AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE
RELIEF AFTER 2-YEAR PERIOD.—In any civil action
with respect to prison conditions, any prospective re-
lief shall automatically terminate 2 years after the
later of—
‘‘(A) the date the court found the violation
of a Federal right that was the basis for the re-
lief; or
‘‘(B) the date of the enactment of the Stop
Turning Out Prisoners Act.
‘‘(2) IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE
RELIEF.—In any civil action with respect to prison
conditions, a defendant or intervenor shall be entitled
to the immediate termination of any prospective re-
(6) by redesignating subparagraphs (O), (P),
and (Q) as subparagraphs (P), (Q), and (U), respec-
tively;
(7) by inserting after subparagraph (N) the fol-
lowing new subparagraph:
‘‘(O) an offense described in section 275(a)
or 276 committed by an alien who was pre-
viously deported on the basis of a conviction for
an offense described in another subparagraph
of this paragraph;’’; and
(8) by inserting after subparagraph (Q), as so
redesignated, the following new subparagraphs:
‘‘(R) an offense relating to commercial
bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in
vehicles the identification numbers of which
have been altered for which a sentence of 5
years’ imprisonment or more may be imposed;
‘‘(S) an offense relating to obstruction of
justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or
bribery of a witness, for which a sentence of 5
years’ imprisonment or more may be imposed;
‘‘(T) an offense relating to a failure to ap-
pear before a court pursuant to a court order
to answer to or dispose of a charge of a felony
HR 667 EH
‘‘(h) Employees compensated by or through the Pris-
on Commissary Fund may be assigned additional duties
other than those directly related to commissary activities.
‘‘(i) The provisions of sections 554 and 555 and 701
through 706 of title 5, United States Code, do not apply
to the making of any determination, decision, or order
under this section.’’.
SEC. 702. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 1321(b) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by striking ‘‘Commissary Funds, Federal
Prisons’’.
Passed the House of Representatives February 10,
1995.
Attest:
Clerk.
104TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 667
AN ACT
To control crime by incarcerating violent criminals.
the juvenile justice authorities for supervision
costs;
‘‘(B) impose a sanction on each juvenile
adjudicated delinquent;
‘‘(C) require that a State court concur in
allowing a juvenile to be sent to a diversionary
program in lieu of juvenile court proceedings;
‘‘(D) have established and maintained an
effective system that requires the prosecution of
at least those juveniles who are 14 years of age
and older as adults, rather than in juvenile pro-
ceedings, for conduct constituting—
‘‘(i) murder or attempted murder;
‘‘(ii) robbery while armed with a dead-
ly weapon;
‘‘(iii) battery while armed with a
deadly weapon;
‘‘(iv) forcible rape;
‘‘(v) any other crime the State deter-
mines appropriate; and
‘‘(vi) the fourth or subsequent occa-
sion on which such juveniles engage in an
activity for which adults could be impris-
oned for a term exceeding 1 year;
inmates and to ensure that incarcerated veterans re-
ceive the veterans benefits to which they are entitled;
and
‘‘(4) the State has adopted procedures for the
collection of reliable statistical data which compiles
the rate of serious violent felonies after the receipt
of grant funds under section 502 or section 503 in
comparison to the rate of serious violent felonies be-
fore receipt of such funds and will report such sta-
tistical data to the Attorney General if such data is
not already provided.
‘‘(b) JUVENILE JUSTICE INCENTIVE.—Beginning in
fiscal year 1998, 15 percent of the funds that would other-
wise be available to a State under section 502 or 503 shall
be withheld from any State which does not have an eligible
system of consequential sanctions for juvenile offenders.
‘‘(c) INDETERMINANT SENTENCING EXCEPTION.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) through
(3) of section 502(b), a State shall be eligible for grants
under this title, if the State, not later than the date of
the enactment of this title—
‘‘(1) practices indeterminant sentencing; and
‘‘(2) the average times served in such State for
the offenses of murder, rape, robbery, and assault
‘‘(2) the term ‘relief’ means all relief in any
form which may be granted or approved by the
court, and includes consent decrees and settlement
agreements; and
‘‘(3) the term ‘prospective relief’ means all re-
lief other than compensatory monetary damages.’’
(b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—Section 3626 of
title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section,
shall apply with respect to all relief (as defined in such
section) whether such relief was originally granted or ap-
proved before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of subchapter C of chapter 229 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘crowd-
ing’’ and inserting ‘‘conditions’’.
Æ
HR 667 IH——2
503, the Attorney General shall apply the following
formula:
‘‘(1) $500,000 or 0.40 percent, whichever is
greater, shall be allocated to each participating State
or compact, as the case may be; and
‘‘(2) of the total amount of funds remaining after
the allocation under paragraph (1), there shall be al-
located to each State or compact, as the case may be,
an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount
of remaining funds described in this paragraph as the
population of such State or compact, as the case may
be, bears to the population of all the States.
‘‘SEC. 506. ACCOUNTABILITY.
‘‘(a) FISCAL REQUIREMENTS.—A State or States orga-
nized as a regional compact that receives funds under this
title shall use accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures that
conform to guidelines which shall be prescribed by the Attor-
ney General.
‘‘(b) REPORTING.—Each State that receives funds
under this title shall submit an annual report, beginning
on January 1, 1996, and each January 1 thereafter, to the
Congress regarding compliance with the requirements of
this title.
‘‘(c) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—The administra-
tive provisions of sections 801 and 802 of the Omnibus
HR 668 RFS
(3) The number of aliens described in para-
graph (2) who have been incarcerated in full compli-
ance with the Treaty.
(4) The number of aliens who are incarcerated
in a penal institution in the United States who are
eligible for transfer pursuant to the Treaty.
(5) The number of aliens described in para-
graph (4) who are incarcerated in State and local
penal institutions.
(c) EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATY.—The report under
subsection (a) shall include the recommendations of the
Secretary of State and the Attorney General to increase
the effectiveness and use of, and full compliance with, the
Treaty. In considering the recommendations under this
subsection, the Secretary and the Attorney General shall
consult with such State and local officials in areas dis-
proportionately impacted by aliens convicted of criminal
offenses as the Secretary and the Attorney General con-
sider appropriate. Such recommendations shall address
the following areas:
(1) Changes in Federal laws, regulations, and
policies affecting the identification, prosecution, and
deportation of aliens who have committed a criminal
offense in the United States.
HR 668 RFS
(2) Changes in State and local laws, regula-
tions, and policies affecting the identification, pros-
ecution, and deportation of aliens who have commit-
ted a criminal offense in the United States.
(3) Changes in the Treaty that may be nec-
essary to increase the number of aliens convicted of
crimes who may be transferred pursuant to the
Treaty.
(4) Methods for preventing the unlawful re-
entry into the United States of aliens who have been
convicted of criminal offenses in the United States
and transferred pursuant to the Treaty.
(5) Any recommendations of appropriate offi-
cials of the Mexican Government on programs to
achieve the goals of, and ensure full compliance
with, the Treaty.
(6) An assessment of whether the recommenda-
tions under this subsection require the renegotiation
of the Treaty.
(7) The additional funds required to implement
each recommendation under this subsection.
I
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4238
To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
to establish requirements in the case of pension plans covering less
than 100 participants relating to entities that hold plan assets and
annual asset statements regarding such assets.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 16, 1998
Mr. GEJDENSON (for himself, Ms. DELAURO, Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut,
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. SHAYS, and Mr. MALONEY of Con-
necticut) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Commit-
tee on Education and Workforce
A BILL
To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Secu-
rity Act of 1974 to establish requirements in the case
of pension plans covering less than 100 participants re-
lating to entities that hold plan assets and annual asset
statements regarding such assets.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Em-
ployee Retirement Protection Act of 1998’’.
(3) by inserting after paragraph (n) the follow-
ing new paragraph:
‘‘(o) a felony violation of section 1028 (relating
to production of false identification documents), sec-
tion 1542 (relating to false statements in passport
applications), section 1546 (relating to fraud and
misuse of visas, permits, and other documents) of
this title or a violation of section 274, 277, or 278
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to
the smuggling of aliens);’’.
SEC. 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
(a) USE OF ELECTRONIC AND TELEPHONIC MEDIA
IN DEPORTATION HEARINGS.—The second sentence of
section 242(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1252(b)) is amended by inserting before the period
the following: ‘‘; except that nothing in this subsection
shall preclude the Attorney General from authorizing pro-
ceedings by electronic or telephonic media (with the con-
sent of the alien) or, where waived or agreed to by the
parties, in the absence of the alien’’.
(b) CODIFICATION.—
(1) Section 242(i) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1252(i)) is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing: ‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to create any substantive or procedural right or ben-
efit that is legally enforceable by any party against
the United States or its agencies or officers or any
other person.’’.
(2) Section 225 of the Immigration Technical
Amendments Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–416) is
amended by striking ‘‘and nothing in’’ and all that
follows through ‘‘1252(i))’’.
(3) The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of
the Immigration Technical Amendments Act of 1994
(Public Law 103–416).
SEC. 10. CONSTRUCTION OF EXPEDITED DEPORTATION RE-
QUIREMENTS.
No amendment made by this title shall be construed
to create any substantive or procedural right or benefit
that is legally enforceable by any party against the United
States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
Æ