Henry Hyde

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. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. HYDE. Well, all I can say is I do not recall the gentleman introducing legislation to dissolve, to dissolve the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I would think that would be the way to go if what the gentleman is half true.

Mr. HYDE. And it is mutual.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I must say I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Michigan quote William Pitts. We were thinking of Billy Pitts on our side whom we all miss, and I am glad, but I guess it was an earlier William Pitts to whom he referred. Waco suppressed: Gee, I remember sitting through an exciting 1-day hearing under the aegis of the former chairman of the House Commitee on the Judiciary where we heard all and sundry witnesses on the Waco situation. I do not think it was suppressed, at least insofar as that 1-day hearing was concerned. But I will just point out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is an executive agency. It is part of the Treasury. Former Senator Bentsen, who was the Secretary of the Treasury, was its commander in chief. The present Secretary of the Treasury is the commander in chief, for want of a better title, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. And so this attack on an executive agency is interesting. I would suggest if it is so horrible, let us get rid of it. I would suggest the gentleman introduce legislation to dissolve the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Instead, you want to make an exception to a general rule which we are trying to adopt, modifying the exclusionary rule so guilty people who possess evidence, contraband, when they are arrested, that it gets admitted into evidence. To make an exception for a single agency of Government is really foolish. It would seem to me, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is so oppressive, we ought to get rid of it. Let us attack it head on. Let us hold hearings. I want to tell the gentlemen on the other side, we are going to hold hearings. We are going to hold hearings on the excessive use of force as alleged in Idaho, as alleged in Waco and other places. We are going to look at that, absolutely. We are not going to sit passively by or have 1-day hearings but to carve out an exception to the exclusionary rule for one agency of Government which is an executive agency of Government makes no sense.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I do not think it is fair to impose on the system and the families of the victims to have an open-ended appeals process, and that is what the Watt amendment does.

Mr. HYDE.. The rule of right reason would say at some point we have to have finality.

Mr. HYDE. I do not want any innocent person to go to jail, but it seems to me----

Mr. HYDE. I am saying the rule ought to require you to have exercised due diligence to get all of the evidence that leads to your innocence. That is my point.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HYDE. You would think it is the exclusionary rule, with all these technicalities getting in the way. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Ohio will address that problem.

Mr. HYDE. I will yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, in the Herrera case, the accused's relative 6 years later came up with an affidavit that said, ``He was with me that night.'' So that was supposed to reopen the case, and that would fit in with Mr. Watt's amendment. The court said, ``No, that is not enough.''

Mr. HYDE. I yield further to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HYDE. How many years would you permit to elapse between the trial and surfacing of this newly discovered evidence?

Mr. HYDE. Do you support the death penalty?

Mr. HYDE. How many years does it take? How many years do we wait to find out?

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HYDE. Let me just say this: I wish you would help us bring these cases to closure. When you have had a trial, a trial that is error free, when you have been convicted beyond all reasonable doubt, and then years later evidence turns up and you are not required to even show that you diligently did everything you could to get whatever evidence you could, it seems to me you are opening the door for never ending these appeals.

Mr. HYDE. I submit to you he should exercise diligence in finding this new evidence, and absent a showing of due diligence, it is an imposition on the whole judicial system and on justice itself because there is merit, real merit, in bringing these matters to finality and to closure. They would endlessly be open under the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Is my figure too high? A staff person of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] was shaking her head.