The express provisions of the Fourth Amendment give direct support for only a few conclusions about enforcement of its standards for searches and do not mandate the exclusionary rule. In addition, the historical context and origins of the amendment do not indicate an intention of an evidentiary suppression rule to protect against unreasonable searches. If Congress provided a superior alternative remedy, Supreme Court decisions indicate that this remedy would be able to replace or supplement the exclusionary rule. In fact, the Chief Justice overtly invited Congress to legislate an alternative remedy to the Fourth Amendment. As a result, six bills have been introduced in the Senate and six in the House of Representatives of the 97th Congress. The bills fall into three categories. Good faith bills permit the admission of evidence if the search or seizure occurred in good faith belief that it conformed to the Fourth Amendment. The substantiality test bills permit evidence unless the court finds an intentional or substantial violation of the Constitution. The third category of bills would eliminate the exclusionary rule and replace it with the common law rule that reliable and relevant evidence is admissible in court regardless of the means by which it was acquired. These bills are the most effective in eliminating all the costs of the exclusionary rule while also providing adequate safeguards that the fourth amendment will be scrupulously upheld. When the misconceptions surrounding the exclusionary rule are eliminated, Congress will reform or replace it. A total of 211 reference notes are provided.