[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT AND SUNDRY AMENDMENTS 
             TO THE CODE AND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4922) to amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a 
telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of 
communications for law enforcement purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4922

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       TITLE I--INTERCEPTION OF DIGITAL AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Communications Assistance 
     for Law Enforcement Act''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) The terms defined in section 2510 of title 18, United 
     States Code, have, respectively, the meanings stated in that 
     section.
       (2) The term ``call-identifying information'' means dialing 
     or signaling information that identifies the origin, 
     direction, destination, or termination of each communication 
     generated or received by a subscriber by means of any 
     equipment, facility, or service of a telecommunications 
     carrier.
       (3) The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (4) The term ``electronic messaging services'' means 
     software-based services that enable the sharing of data, 
     images, sound, writing, or other information among computing 
     devices controlled by the senders or recipients of the 
     messages.
       (5) The term ``government'' means the government of the 
     United States and any agency or instrumentality thereof, the 
     District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or 
     possession of the United States, and any State or political 
     subdivision thereof authorized by law to conduct electronic 
     surveillance.
       (6) The term ``information services''--
       (A) means the offering of a capability for generating, 
     acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, 
     utilizing, or making available information via 
     telecommunications; and
       (B) includes--
       (i) a service that permits a customer to retrieve stored 
     information from, or file information for storage in, 
     information storage facilities;
       (ii) electronic publishing; and
       (iii) electronic messaging services; but
       (C) does not include any capability for a 
     telecommunications carrier's internal management, control, or 
     operation of its telecommunications network.
       (7) The term ``telecommunications support services'' means 
     a product, software, or service used by a telecommunications 
     carrier for the internal signaling or switching functions of 
     its telecommunications network.
       (8) The term ``telecommunications carrier''--
       (A) means a person or entity engaged in the transmission or 
     switching of wire or electronic communications as a common 
     carrier for hire; and
       (B) includes--
       (i) a person or entity engaged in providing commercial 
     mobile service (as defined in section 332(d) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d))); or
       (ii) a person or entity engaged in providing wire or 
     electronic communication switching or transmission service to 
     the extent that the Commission finds that such service is a 
     replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone 
     exchange service and that it is in the public interest to 
     deem such a person or entity to be a telecommunications 
     carrier for purposes of this title; but
       (C) does not include--
       (i) persons or entities insofar as they are engaged in 
     providing information services; and
       (ii) any class or category of telecommunications carriers 
     that the Commission exempts by rule after consultation with 
     the Attorney General.

     SEC. 103. ASSISTANCE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Capability Requirements.--Except as provided in 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section and sections 
     108(a) and 109(b) and (d), a telecommunications carrier shall 
     ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that 
     provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to 
     originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable 
     of--
       (1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, 
     pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to 
     intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all 
     wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier 
     within a service area to or from equipment, facilities, or 
     services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with 
     their transmission to or from the subscriber's equipment, 
     facility, or service, or at such later time as may be 
     acceptable to the government;
       (2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, 
     pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to 
     access call-identifying information that is reasonably 
     available to the carrier--
       (A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission 
     of a wire or electronic communication (or at such later time 
     as may be acceptable to the government); and
       (B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the 
     communication to which it pertains,

     except that, with regard to information acquired solely 
     pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and 
     trace devices (as defined in section 3127 of title 18, United 
     States Code), such call-identifying information shall not 
     include any information that may disclose the physical 
     location of the subscriber (except to the extent that the 
     location may be determined from the telephone number);
       (3) delivering intercepted communications and call-
     identifying information to the government, pursuant to a 
     court order or other lawful authorization, in a format such 
     that they may be transmitted by means of equipment, 
     facilities, or services procured by the government to a 
     location other than the premises of the carrier; and
       (4) facilitating authorized communications interceptions 
     and access to call-identifying information unobtrusively and 
     with a minimum of interference with any subscriber's 
     telecommunications service and in a manner that protects--
       (A) the privacy and security of communications and call-
     identifying information not authorized to be intercepted; and
       (B) information regarding the government's interception of 
     communications and access to call-identifying information.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Design of features and systems configurations.--This 
     title does not authorize any law enforcement agency or 
     officer--
       (A) to require any specific design of equipment, 
     facilities, services, features, or system configurations to 
     be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic 
     communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications 
     equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support 
     services; or
       (B) to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, 
     service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic 
     communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications 
     equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support 
     services.
       (2) Information services; private networks and 
     interconnection services and facilities.--The requirements of 
     subsection (a) do not apply to--
       (A) information services; or
       (B) equipment, facilities, or services that support the 
     transport or switching of communications for private networks 
     or for the sole purpose of interconnecting telecommunications 
     carriers.
       (3) Encryption.--A telecommunications carrier shall not be 
     responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government's 
     ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a 
     subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by 
     the carrier and the carrier possesses the information 
     necessary to decrypt the communication.
       (c) Emergency or Exigent Circumstances.--In emergency or 
     exigent circumstances (including those described in sections 
     2518 (7) or (11)(b) and 3125 of title 18, United States Code, 
     and section 1805(e) of title 50 of such Code), a carrier at 
     its discretion may comply with subsection (a)(3) by allowing 
     monitoring at its premises if that is the only means of 
     accomplishing the interception or access.
       (d) Mobile Service Assistance Requirements.--A 
     telecommunications carrier that is a provider of commercial 
     mobile service (as defined in section 332(d) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934) offering a feature or service 
     that allows subscribers to redirect, hand off, or assign 
     their wire or electronic communications to another service 
     area or another service provider or to utilize facilities in 
     another service area or of another service provider shall 
     ensure that, when the carrier that had been providing 
     assistance for the interception of wire or electronic 
     communications or access to call-identifying information 
     pursuant to a court order or lawful authorization no longer 
     has access to the content of such communications or call-
     identifying information within the service area in which 
     interception has been occurring as a result of the 
     subscriber's use of such a feature or service, information is 
     made available to the government (before, during, or 
     immediately after the transfer of such communications) 
     identifying the provider of wire or electronic communication 
     service that has acquired access to the communications.

     SEC. 104. NOTICES OF CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Notices of Maximum and Actual Capacity Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, after consulting with State and 
     local law enforcement agencies, telecommunications carriers, 
     providers of telecommunications support services, and 
     manufacturers of telecommunications equipment, and after 
     notice and comment, the Attorney General shall publish in the 
     Federal Register and provide to appropriate 
     telecommunications industry associations and standard-setting 
     organizations--
       (A) notice of the actual number of communication 
     interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices, 
     representing a portion of the maximum capacity set forth 
     under subparagraph (B), that the Attorney General estimates 
     that government agencies authorized to conduct electronic 
     surveillance may conduct and use simultaneously by the date 
     that is 4 years after the date of enactment of this title; 
     and
       (B) notice of the maximum capacity required to accommodate 
     all of the communication interceptions, pen registers, and 
     trap and trace devices that the Attorney General estimates 
     that government agencies authorized to conduct electronic 
     surveillance may conduct and use simultaneously after the 
     date that is 4 years after the date of enactment of this 
     title.
       (2) Basis of notices.--The notices issued under paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) may be based upon the type of equipment, type of 
     service, number of subscribers, type or size or carrier, 
     nature of service area, or any other measure; and
       (B) shall identify, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     capacity required at specific geographic locations.
       (b) Compliance With Capacity Notices.--
       (1) Initial capacity.--Within 3 years after the publication 
     by the Attorney General of a notice of capacity requirements 
     or within 4 years after the date of enactment of this title, 
     whichever is longer, a telecommunications carrier shall, 
     subject to subsection (e), ensure that its systems are 
     capable of--
       (A) accommodating simultaneously the number of 
     interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices set 
     forth in the notice under subsection (a)(1)(A); and
       (B) expanding to the maximum capacity set forth in the 
     notice under subsection (a)(1)(B).
       (2) Expansion to maximum capacity.--After the date 
     described in paragraph (1), a telecommunications carrier 
     shall, subject to subsection (e), ensure that it can 
     accommodate expeditiously any increase in the actual number 
     of communication interceptions, pen registers, and trap and 
     trace devices that authorized agencies may seek to conduct 
     and use, up to the maximum capacity requirement set forth in 
     the notice under subsection (a)(1)(B).
       (c) Notices of Increased Maximum Capacity Requirements.--
       (1) Notice.--The Attorney General shall periodically 
     publish in the Federal Register, after notice and comment, 
     notice of any necessary increases in the maximum capacity 
     requirement set forth in the notice under subsection 
     (a)(1)(B).
       (2) Compliance.--Within 3 years after notice of increased 
     maximum capacity requirements is published under paragraph 
     (1), or within such longer time period as the Attorney 
     General may specify, a telecommunications carrier shall, 
     subject to subsection (e), ensure that its systems are 
     capable of expanding to the increased maximum capacity set 
     forth in the notice.
       (d) Carrier Statement.--Within 180 days after the 
     publication by the Attorney General of a notice of capacity 
     requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a 
     telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney 
     General a statement identifying any of its systems or 
     services that do not have the capacity to accommodate 
     simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, 
     and trap and trace devices set forth in the notice under such 
     subsection.
       (e) Reimbursement Required for Compliance.--The Attorney 
     General shall review the statements submitted under 
     subsection (d) and may, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, agree to reimburse a telecommunications 
     carrier for costs directly associated with modifications to 
     attain such capacity requirement that are determined to be 
     reasonable in accordance with section 109(e). Until the 
     Attorney General agrees to reimburse such carrier for such 
     modification, such carrier shall be considered to be in 
     compliance with the capacity notices under subsection (a) or 
     (c).

     SEC. 105. SYSTEMS SECURITY AND INTEGRITY.

       A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any 
     interception of communications or access to call-identifying 
     information effected within its switching premises can be 
     activated only in accordance with a court order or other 
     lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of 
     an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.

     SEC. 106. COOPERATION OF EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS AND 
                   PROVIDERS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) Consultation.--A telecommunications carrier shall 
     consult, as necessary, in a timely fashion with manufacturers 
     of its telecommunications transmission and switching 
     equipment and its providers of telecommunications support 
     services for the purpose of ensuring that current and planned 
     equipment, facilities, and services comply with the 
     capability requirements of section 103 and the capacity 
     requirements identified by the Attorney General under section 
     104.
       (b) Cooperation.--Subject to sections 104(e), 108(a), and 
     109(b) and (d), a manufacturer of telecommunications 
     transmission or switching equipment and a provider of 
     telecommunications support services shall, on a reasonably 
     timely basis and at a reasonable charge, make available to 
     the telecommunications carriers using its equipment, 
     facilities, or services such features or modifications as are 
     necessary to permit such carriers to comply with the 
     capability requirements of section 103 and the capacity 
     requirements identified by the Attorney General under section 
     104.

     SEC. 107. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS; EXTENSION OF 
                   COMPLIANCE DATE.

       (a) Safe Harbor.--
       (1) Consultation.--To ensure the efficient and industry-
     wide implementation of the assistance capability requirements 
     under section 103, the Attorney General, in coordination with 
     other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, 
     shall consult with appropriate associations and standard-
     setting organizations of the telecommunications industry, 
     with representatives of users of telecommunications 
     equipment, facilities, and services, and with State utility 
     commissions.
       (2) Compliance under accepted standards.--A 
     telecommunications carrier shall be found to be in compliance 
     with the assistance capability requirements under section 
     103, and a manufacturer of telecommunications transmission or 
     switching equipment or a provider of telecommunications 
     support services shall be found to be in compliance with 
     section 106, if the carrier, manufacturer, or support service 
     provider is in compliance with publicly available technical 
     requirements or standards adopted by an industry association 
     or standard-setting organization, or by the Commission under 
     subsection (b), to meet the requirements of section 103.
       (3) Absence of standards.--The absence of technical 
     requirements or standards for implementing the assistance 
     capability requirements of section 103 shall not--
       (A) preclude a telecommunications carrier, manufacturer, or 
     telecommunications support services provider from deploying a 
     technology or service; or
       (B) relieve a carrier, manufacturer, or telecommunications 
     support services provider of the obligations imposed by 
     section 103 or 106, as applicable.
       (b) Commission Authority.--If industry associations or 
     standard-setting organizations fail to issue technical 
     requirements or standards or if a government agency or any 
     other person believes that such requirements or standards are 
     deficient, the agency or person may petition the Commission 
     to establish, by rule, technical requirements or standards 
     that--
       (1) meet the assistance capability requirements of section 
     103 by cost-effective methods;
       (2) protect the privacy and security of communications not 
     authorized to be intercepted;
       (3) minimize the cost of such compliance on residential 
     ratepayers;
       (4) serve the policy of the United States to encourage the 
     provision of new technologies and services to the public; and
       (5) provide a reasonable time and conditions for compliance 
     with and the transition to any new standard, including 
     defining the obligations of telecommunications carriers under 
     section 103 during any transition period.
       (c) Extension of Compliance Date for Equipment, Facilities, 
     and Services.--
       (1) Petition.--A telecommunications carrier proposing to 
     install or deploy, or having installed or deployed, any 
     equipment, facility, or service prior to the effective date 
     of section 103 may petition the Commission for 1 or more 
     extensions of the deadline for complying with the assistance 
     capability requirements under section 103.
       (2) Grounds for extension.--The Commission may, after 
     consultation with the Attorney General, grant an extension 
     under this subsection, if the Commission determines that 
     compliance with the assistance capability requirements under 
     section 103 is not reasonably achievable through application 
     of technology available within the compliance period.
       (3) Length of extension.--An extension under this 
     subsection shall extend for no longer than the earlier of--
       (A) the date determined by the Commission as necessary for 
     the carrier to comply with the assistance capability 
     requirements under section 103; or
       (B) the date that is 2 years after the date on which the 
     extension is granted.
       (4) Applicability of extension.--An extension under this 
     subsection shall apply to only that part of the carrier's 
     business on which the new equipment, facility, or service is 
     used.

     SEC. 108. ENFORCEMENT ORDERS.

       (a) Grounds for Issuance.--A court shall issue an order 
     enforcing this title under section 2522 of title 18, United 
     States Code, only if the court finds that--
       (1) alternative technologies or capabilities or the 
     facilities of another carrier are not reasonably available to 
     law enforcement for implementing the interception of 
     communications or access to call-identifying information; and
       (2) compliance with the requirements of this title is 
     reasonably achievable through the application of available 
     technology to the equipment, facility, or service at issue or 
     would have been reasonably achievable if timely action had 
     been taken.
       (b) Time for Compliance.--Upon issuing an order enforcing 
     this title, the court shall specify a reasonable time and 
     conditions for complying with its order, considering the good 
     faith efforts to comply in a timely manner, any effect on the 
     carrier's, manufacturer's, or service provider's ability to 
     continue to do business, the degree of culpability or delay 
     in undertaking efforts to comply, and such other matters as 
     justice may require.
       (c) Limitations.--An order enforcing this title may not--
       (1) require a telecommunications carrier to meet the 
     government's demand for interception of communications and 
     acquisition of call-identifying information to any extent in 
     excess of the capacity for which the Attorney General has 
     agreed to reimburse such carrier;
       (2) require any telecommunications carrier to comply with 
     assistance capability requirement of section 103 if the 
     Commission has determined (pursuant to section 109(b)(1)) 
     that compliance is not reasonably achievable, unless the 
     Attorney General has agreed (pursuant to section 109(b)(2)) 
     to pay the costs described in section 109(b)(2)(A); or
       (3) require a telecommunications carrier to modify, for the 
     purpose of complying with the assistance capability 
     requirements of section 103, any equipment, facility, or 
     service deployed on or before January 1, 1995, unless--
       (A) the Attorney General has agreed to pay the 
     telecommunications carrier for all reasonable costs directly 
     associated with modifications necessary to bring the 
     equipment, facility, or service into compliance with those 
     requirements; or
       (B) the equipment, facility, or service has been replaced 
     or significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes major 
     modification.

     SEC. 109. PAYMENT OF COSTS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS TO 
                   COMPLY WITH CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Equipment, Facilities, and Services Deployed on or 
     Before January 1, 1995.--The Attorney General may, subject to 
     the availability of appropriations, agree to pay 
     telecommunications carriers for all reasonable costs directly 
     associated with the modifications performed by carriers in 
     connection with equipment, facilities, and services installed 
     or deployed on or before January 1, 1995, to establish the 
     capabilities necessary to comply with section 103.
       (b) Equipment, Facilities, and Services Deployed After 
     January 1, 1995.--
       (1) Determinations of reasonably achievable.--The 
     Commission, on petition from a telecommunications carrier or 
     any other interested person, and after notice to the Attorney 
     General, shall determine whether compliance with the 
     assistance capability requirements of section 103 is 
     reasonably achievable with respect to any equipment, 
     facility, or service installed or deployed after January 1, 
     1995. The Commission shall make such determination within 1 
     year after the date such petition is filed. In making such 
     determination, the Commission shall determine whether 
     compliance would impose significant difficulty or expense on 
     the carrier or on the users of the carrier's systems and 
     shall consider the following factors:
       (A) The effect on public safety and national security.
       (B) The effect on rates for basic residential telephone 
     service.
       (C) The need to protect the privacy and security of 
     communications not authorized to be intercepted.
       (D) The need to achieve the capability assistance 
     requirements of section 103 by cost-effective methods.
       (E) The effect on the nature and cost of the equipment, 
     facility, or service at issue.
       (F) The effect on the operation of the equipment, facility, 
     or service at issue.
       (G) The policy of the United States to encourage the 
     provision of new technologies and services to the public.
       (H) The financial resources of the telecommunications 
     carrier.
       (I) The effect on competition in the provision of 
     telecommunications services.
       (J) The extent to which the design and development of the 
     equipment, facility, or service was initiated before January 
     1, 1995.
       (K) Such other factors as the Commission determines are 
     appropriate.
       (2) Compensation.--If compliance with the assistance 
     capability requirements of section 103 is not reasonably 
     achievable with respect to equipment, facilities, or services 
     deployed after January 1, 1995--
       (A) the Attorney General, on application of a 
     telecommunications carrier, may agree, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, to pay the telecommunications 
     carrier for the additional reasonable costs of making 
     compliance with such assistance capability requirements 
     reasonably achievable; and
       (B) if the Attorney General does not agree to pay such 
     costs, the telecommunications carrier shall be deemed to be 
     in compliance with such capability requirements.
       (c) Allocation of Funds for Payment.--The Attorney General 
     shall allocate funds appropriated to carry out this title in 
     accordance with law enforcement priorities determined by the 
     Attorney General.
       (d) Failure To Make Payment With Respect To Equipment, 
     Facilities, and Services Deployed on or Before January 1, 
     1995.--If a carrier has requested payment in accordance with 
     procedures promulgated pursuant to subsection (e), and the 
     Attorney General has not agreed to pay the telecommunications 
     carrier for all reasonable costs directly associated with 
     modifications necessary to bring any equipment, facility, or 
     service deployed on or before January 1, 1995, into 
     compliance with the assistance capability requirements of 
     section 103, such equipment, facility, or service shall be 
     considered to be in compliance with the assistance capability 
     requirements of section 103 until the equipment, facility, or 
     service is replaced or significantly upgraded or otherwise 
     undergoes major modification.
       (e) Cost Control Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall, after notice 
     and comment, establish regulations necessary to effectuate 
     timely and cost-efficient payment to telecommunications 
     carriers under this title, under chapters 119 and 121 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and under the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Contents of regulations.--The Attorney General, after 
     consultation with the Commission, shall prescribe regulations 
     for purposes of determining reasonable costs under this 
     title. Such regulations shall seek to minimize the cost to 
     the Federal Government and shall--
       (A) permit recovery from the Federal Government of--
       (i) the direct costs of developing the modifications 
     described in subsection (a), of providing the capabilities 
     requested under subsection (b)(2), or of providing the 
     capacities requested under section 104(e), but only to the 
     extent that such costs have not been recovered from any other 
     governmental or nongovernmental entity;
       (ii) the costs of training personnel in the use of such 
     capabilities or capacities; and
       (iii) the direct costs of deploying or installing such 
     capabilities or capacities;
       (B) in the case of any modification that may be used for 
     any purpose other than lawfully authorized electronic 
     surveillance by a law enforcement agency of a government, 
     permit recovery of only the incremental cost of making the 
     modification suitable for such law enforcement purposes; and
       (C) maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets.
       (3) Submission of claims.--Such regulations shall require 
     any telecommunications carrier that the Attorney General has 
     agreed to pay for modifications pursuant to this section and 
     that has installed or deployed such modification to submit to 
     the Attorney General a claim for payment that contains or is 
     accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may 
     require.

     SEC. 110. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title a total of $500,000,000 for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 
     1997, and 1998. Such sums are authorized to remain available 
     until expended.

     SEC. 111. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
     title shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Assistance Capability and Systems Security and 
     Integrity Requirements.--Sections 103 and 105 of this title 
     shall take effect on the date that is 4 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 112. REPORTS.

       (a)  Reports by the Attorney General.--
       (1) In general.--On or before November 30, 1995, and on or 
     before November 30 of each year thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress and make available to the 
     public a report on the amounts paid during the preceding 
     fiscal year to telecommunications carriers under sections 
     104(e) and 109.
       (2) Contents.--A report under paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) a detailed accounting of the amounts paid to each 
     carrier and the equipment, facility, or service for which the 
     amounts were paid; and
       (B) projections of the amounts expected to be paid in the 
     current fiscal year, the carriers to which payment is 
     expected to be made, and the equipment, facilities, or 
     services for which payment is expected to be made.
       (b) Reports by the Comptroller General.--
       (1) Payments for modifications.--On or before April 1, 
     1996, and every 2 years thereafter, the Comptroller General 
     of the United States, after consultation with the Attorney 
     General and the telecommunications industry, shall submit to 
     the Congress a report--
       (A) describing the type of equipment, facilities, and 
     services that have been brought into compliance under this 
     title; and
       (B) reflecting its analysis of the reasonableness and cost-
     effectiveness of the payments made by the Attorney General to 
     telecommunications carriers for modifications necessary to 
     ensure compliance with this title.
       (2) Compliance cost estimates.--A report under paragraph 
     (1) shall include the findings and conclusions of the 
     Comptroller General on the costs to be incurred by 
     telecommunications carriers to comply with the assistance 
     capability requirements of section 103 after the effective 
     date of such section 103, including projections of the 
     amounts expected to be incurred and a description of the 
     equipment, facilities, or services for which they are 
     expected to be incurred.
          TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

     SEC. 201. COURT ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT.

       (a) Court Orders Under Chapter 119.--Chapter 119 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     2521 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2522. Enforcement of the Communications Assistance for 
       Law Enforcement Act.

       ``(a) Enforcement by Court Issuing Surveillance Order.--If 
     a court authorizing an interception under this chapter, a 
     State statute, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or authorizing use of a pen 
     register or a trap and trace device under chapter 206 or a 
     State statute finds that a telecommunications carrier has 
     failed to comply with the requirements of the Communications 
     Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, the court may, in 
     accordance with section 108 of such Act, direct that the 
     carrier comply forthwith and may direct that a provider of 
     support services to the carrier or the manufacturer of the 
     carrier's transmission or switching equipment furnish 
     forthwith modifications necessary for the carrier to comply.
       ``(b) Enforcement Upon Application by Attorney General.--
     The Attorney General may, in a civil action in the 
     appropriate United States district court, obtain an order, in 
     accordance with section 108 of the Communications Assistance 
     for Law Enforcement Act, directing that a telecommunications 
     carrier, a manufacturer of telecommunications transmission or 
     switching equipment, or a provider of telecommunications 
     support services comply with such Act.
       ``(c) Civil Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--A court issuing an order under this 
     section against a telecommunications carrier, a manufacturer 
     of telecommunications transmission or switching equipment, or 
     a provider of telecommunications support services may impose 
     a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each day in 
     violation after the issuance of the order or after such 
     future date as the court may specify.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In determining whether to impose a 
     civil penalty and in determining its amount, the court shall 
     take into account--
       ``(A) the nature, circumstances, and extent of the 
     violation;
       ``(B) the violator's ability to pay, the violator's good 
     faith efforts to comply in a timely manner, any effect on the 
     violator's ability to continue to do business, the degree of 
     culpability, and the length of any delay in undertaking 
     efforts to comply; and
       ``(C) such other matters as justice may require.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section, the terms 
     defined in section 102 of the Communications Assistance for 
     Law Enforcement Act have the meanings provided, respectively, 
     in such section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2518(4) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Pursuant to section 2522 of this chapter, an order may also 
     be issued to enforce the assistance capability and capacity 
     requirements under the Communications Assistance for Law 
     Enforcement Act.''.
       (2) Section 3124 of such title is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Communications Assistance Enforcement Orders.--
     Pursuant to section 2522, an order may be issued to enforce 
     the assistance capability and capacity requirements under the 
     Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.''.
       (3) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 119 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item pertaining to section 2521 the following new 
     item:

``2522. Enforcement of the Communications Assistance for Law 
              Enforcement Act.''.

     SEC. 202. CORDLESS TELEPHONES.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2510 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, but such term does 
     not include'' and all that follows through ``base unit''; and
       (2) in paragraph (12), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (4)(b)(i) by inserting ``a cordless 
     telephone communication that is transmitted between the 
     cordless telephone handset and the base unit,'' after 
     ``cellular telephone communication,''; and
       (2) in subsection (4)(b)(ii) by inserting ``a cordless 
     telephone communication that is transmitted between the 
     cordless telephone handset and the base unit,'' after 
     ``cellular telephone communication,''.

     SEC. 203. RADIO-BASED DATA COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 2510(16) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
       (2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (E); and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) an electronic communication;''

     SEC. 204. PENALTIES FOR MONITORING RADIO COMMUNICATIONS THAT 
                   ARE TRANSMITTED USING MODULATION TECHNIQUES 
                   WITH NONPUBLIC PARAMETERS.

       Section 2511(4)(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``or encrypted, then'' and inserting ``, 
     encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the 
     essential parameters of which have been withheld from the 
     public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such 
     communication, then''.

     SEC. 205. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 2511(2)(a)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``used in the transmission of a wire 
     communication'' and inserting ``used in the transmission of a 
     wire or electronic communication''.

     SEC. 206. FRAUDULENT ALTERATION OF COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO 
                   INSTRUMENTS.

       (a) Offense.--Section 1029(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(5) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces, 
     traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses a 
     telecommunications instrument that has been modified or 
     altered to obtain unauthorized use of telecommunications 
     services; or
       ``(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces, 
     traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses--
       ``(A) a scanning receiver; or
       ``(B) hardware or software used for altering or modifying 
     telecommunications instruments to obtain unauthorized access 
     to telecommunications services,''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 1029(c)(2) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``(a)(1) or (a)(4)'' and 
     inserting ``(a) (1), (4), (5), or (6)''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 1029(e) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``electronic serial 
     number, mobile identification number, personal identification 
     number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or 
     instrument identifier,'' after ``account number,'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) the term `scanning receiver' means a device or 
     apparatus that can be used to intercept a wire or electronic 
     communication in violation of chapter 119.''.

     SEC. 207. TRANSACTIONAL DATA.

       (a) Disclosure of Records.--Section 2703 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking clause (i); and
       (ii) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) A provider of electronic communication service or 
     remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental 
     entity the name, address, telephone toll billing records, 
     telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and 
     length of service of a subscriber to or customer of such 
     service and the types of services the subscriber or customer 
     utilized, when the governmental entity uses an administrative 
     subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a 
     Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means 
     available under subparagraph (B).''; and
       (2) by amending the first sentence of subsection (d) to 
     read as follows: ``A court order for disclosure under 
     subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a 
     court of competent jurisdiction described in section 
     3126(2)(A) and shall issue only if the governmental entity 
     offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are 
     reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or 
     electronic communication, or the records or other information 
     sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal 
     investigation.''.
       (b) Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices.--Section 3121 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Limitation.--A government agency authorized to 
     install and use a pen register under this chapter or under 
     State law shall use technology reasonably available to it 
     that restricts the recording or decoding of electronic or 
     other impulses to the dialing and signaling information 
     utilized in call processing.''.

     SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION FOR ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL 
                   IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION TO APPROVE CERTAIN 
                   COURT APPLICATIONS.

       Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``or acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General'' 
     after ``Deputy Assistant Attorney General''.
        TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

     SEC. 301. COMPLIANCE COST RECOVERY.

       Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     inserting after section 228 (47 U.S.C. 228) the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 229. COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT 
                   COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Commission shall prescribe such 
     rules as are necessary to implement the requirements of the 
     Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
       ``(b) Systems Security and Integrity.--The rules prescribed 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall include rules to implement 
     section 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law 
     Enforcement Act that require common carriers--
       ``(1) to establish appropriate policies and procedures for 
     the supervision and control of its officers and employees--
       ``(A) to require appropriate authorization to activate 
     interception of communications or access to call-identifying 
     information; and
       ``(B) to prevent any such interception or access without 
     such authorization;
       ``(2) to maintain secure and accurate records of any 
     interception or access with or without such authorization; 
     and
       ``(3) to submit to the Commission the policies and 
     procedures adopted to comply with the requirements 
     established under paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(c) Commission Review of Compliance.--The Commission 
     shall review the policies and procedures submitted under 
     subsection (b)(3) and shall order a common carrier to modify 
     any such policy or procedure that the Commission determines 
     does not comply with Commission regulations. The Commission 
     shall conduct such investigations as may be necessary to 
     insure compliance by common carriers with the requirements of 
     the regulations prescribed under this section.
       ``(d) Penalties.--For purposes of this Act, a violation by 
     an officer or employee of any policy or procedure adopted by 
     a common carrier pursuant to subsection (b), or of a rule 
     prescribed by the Commission pursuant to subsection (a), 
     shall be considered to be a violation by the carrier of a 
     rule prescribed by the Commission pursuant to this Act.
       ``(e) Cost Recovery for Communications Assistance for Law 
     Enforcement Act Compliance.--
       ``(1) Petitions authorized.--A common carrier may petition 
     the Commission to adjust charges, practices, classifications, 
     and regulations to recover costs expended for making 
     modifications to equipment, facilities, or services pursuant 
     to the requirements of section 103 of the Communications 
     Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
       ``(2) Commission authority.--The Commission may grant, with 
     or without modification, a petition under paragraph (1) if 
     the Commission determines that such costs are reasonable and 
     that permitting recovery is consistent with the public 
     interest. The Commission may, consistent with maintaining 
     just and reasonable charges, practices, classifications, and 
     regulations in connection with the provision of interstate or 
     foreign communication by wire or radio by a common carrier, 
     allow carriers to adjust such charges, practices, 
     classifications, and regulations in order to carry out the 
     purposes of this Act.
       ``(3) Joint board.--The Commission shall convene a Federal-
     State joint board to recommend appropriate changes to part 36 
     of the Commission's rules with respect to recovery of costs 
     pursuant to charges, practices, classifications, and 
     regulations under the jurisdiction of the Commission.''.

     SEC. 302. RECOVERY OF COST OF COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS.

       The schedule of application fees in section 8(g) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 158(g)) is amended by 
     inserting under item 1 of the matter pertaining to common 
     carrier services the following additional subitem:

  ``d. Proceeding under section 109(b) of the Communications 
    Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.........................5,000''.

     SEC. 303. CLERICAL AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Amendments to the Communications Act of  1934.--The 
     Communications Act of 1934 is amended--
       (1) in section 4(f)(3), by striking ``overtime exceeds 
     beyond'' and inserting ``overtime extends beyond'';
       (2) in section 5, by redesignating subsection (f) as 
     subsection (e);
       (3) in section 8(d)(2), by striking ``payment of a'' and 
     inserting ``payment of an'';
       (4) in the schedule contained in section 8(g), in item 7.f. 
     under the heading ``equipment approval services/experimental 
     radio'' by striking ``Additional Charge'' and inserting 
     ``Additional Application Fee'';
       (5) in section 9(f)(1), by inserting before the second 
     sentence the following:
       ``(2) Installment payments.--'';
       (6) in the schedule contained in section 9(g), in the item 
     pertaining to interactive video data services under the 
     private radio bureau, insert ``95'' after ``47 C.F.R. Part'';
       (7) in section 220(a)--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a); and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Commission shall, by rule, prescribe a uniform 
     system of accounts for use by telephone companies. Such 
     uniform system shall require that each common carrier shall 
     maintain a system of accounting methods, procedures, and 
     techniques (including accounts and supporting records and 
     memoranda) which shall ensure a proper allocation of all 
     costs to and among telecommunications services, facilities, 
     and products (and to and among classes of such services, 
     facilities, and products) which are developed, manufactured, 
     or offered by such common carrier.'';
       (8) in section 220(b), by striking ``clasess'' and 
     inserting ``classes'';
       (9) in section 223(b)(3), by striking ``defendant restrict 
     access'' and inserting ``defendant restricted access'';
       (10) in section 226(d), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), respectively;
       (11) in section 227(b)(2)(C), by striking ``paragraphs'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph'';
       (12) in section 227(e)(2), by striking ``national 
     datebase'' and inserting ``national database'';
       (13) in section 228(c), by redesignating the second 
     paragraph (2) and paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs 
     (3) through (7), respectively;
       (14) in section 228(c)(6)(D), by striking ``conservation'' 
     and inserting ``conversation'';
       (15) in section 308(c), by striking ``May 24, 1921'' and 
     inserting ``May 27, 1921'';
       (16) in section 309(c)(2)(F), by striking ``section 
     325(b)'' and inserting ``section 325(c)'';
       (17) in section 309(i)(4)(A), by striking ``Communications 
     Technical Amendments Act of 1982'' and inserting 
     ``Communications Amendments Act of 1982'';
       (18) in section 331, by amending the heading of such 
     section to read as follows:


        ``very high frequency stations and am radio stations'';

       (19) in section 358, by striking ``(a)'';
       (20) in part III of title III--
       (A) by inserting before section 381 the following heading:


``vessels transporting more than six passengers for hire required to be 
                    equipped with radio telephone'';

       (B) by inserting before section 382 the following heading:


         ``vessels excepted from radio telephone requirement'';

       (C) by inserting before section 383 the following heading:


                     ``exemptions by commission'';

       (D) by inserting before section 384 the following heading:


 ``authority of commission; operations, installations, and additional 
                              equipment'';

       (E) by inserting before section 385 the following heading:


                          ``inspections''; and

       (F) by inserting before section 386 the following heading:


                            ``forfeitures'';

       (21) in section 410(c), by striking ``, as referred to in 
     sections 202(b) and 205(f) of the Interstate Commerce Act,'';
       (22) in section 613(b)(2), by inserting a comma after 
     ``pole'' and after ``line'';
       (23) in section 624(d)(2)(A), by inserting ``of'' after 
     ``viewing'';
       (24) in section 634(h)(1), by striking ``section 
     602(6)(A)'' and inserting ``section 602(7)(A)'';
       (25) in section 705(d)(6), by striking ``subsection (d)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (e)'';
       (26) in section 705(e)(3)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4) 
     of subsection (d)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4) of this 
     subsection'';
       (27) in section 705, by redesignating subsections (f) and 
     (g) (as added by Public Law 100-667) as subsections (g) and 
     (h); and
       (28) in section 705(h) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (f)'' and inserting ``subsection (g)''.
       (b) Amendments to the Communications Satellite Act of 
     1962.--The Communications Satellite Act of 1962 is amended--
       (1) in section 303(a)--
       (A) by striking ``section 27(d)'' and inserting ``section 
     327(d)'';
       (B) by striking ``sec. 29-911(d)'' and inserting ``sec. 29-
     327(d)'';
       (C) by striking ``section 36'' and inserting ``section 
     336''; and
       (D) by striking ``sec. 29-916d'' and inserting ``section 
     29-336(d)'';
       (2) in section 304(d), by striking ``paragraphs (1), (2), 
     (3), (4), and (5) of section 310(a)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a) and paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection 
     (b) of section 310''; and
       (3) in section 304(e)--
       (A) by striking ``section 45(b)'' and inserting ``section 
     345(b)''; and
       (B) by striking ``sec. 29-920(b)'' and inserting ``sec. 29-
     345(b)''; and
       (4) in sections 502(b) and 503(a)(1), by striking ``the 
     Communications Satellite Corporation'' and inserting ``the 
     communications satellite corporation established pursuant to 
     title III of this Act''.
       (c) Amendment to the Children's Television Act of 1990.--
     Section 103(a) of the Children's Television Act of 1990 (47 
     U.S.C. 303b(a)) is amended by striking ``noncommerical'' and 
     inserting ``noncommercial''.
       (d) Amendments to the Telecommunications Authorization Act 
     of 1992.--Section 205(1) of the Telecommunications 
     Authorization Act of 1992 is amended--
       (1) by inserting an open parenthesis before ``other than''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting a comma after ``stations)''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1253 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 is repealed.
       (f) Stylistic Consistency.--The Communications Act of 1934 
     and the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 are amended so 
     that the section designation and section heading of each 
     section of such Acts shall be in the form and typeface of the 
     section designation and heading of this section.

     SEC. 304. ELIMINATION OF EXPIRED AND OUTDATED PROVISIONS.

       (a) Amendments to the Communications Act of 1934.--The 
     Communications Act of 1934 is amended--
       (1) in section 7(b), by striking ``or twelve months after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, if later'' both 
     places it appears;
       (2) in section 212, by striking ``After sixty days from the 
     enactment of this Act it shall'' and inserting ``It shall'';
       (3) in section 213, by striking subsection (g) and 
     redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g);
       (4) in section 214, by striking ``section 221 or 222'' and 
     inserting ``section 221'';
       (5) in section 220(b), by striking ``, as soon as 
     practicable,'';
       (6) by striking section 222;
       (7) in section 224(b)(2), by striking ``Within 180 days 
     from the date of enactment of this section the Commission'' 
     and inserting ``The Commission'';
       (8) in 226(e), by striking ``within 9 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section,'';
       (9) in section 309(i)(4)(A), by striking ``The commission, 
     not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     the Communications Technical Amendments Act of 1982, shall,'' 
     and inserting ``The Commission shall,'';
       (10) by striking section 328;
       (11) in section 413, by striking ``, within sixty days 
     after the taking effect of this Act,'';
       (12) in section 624(d)(2)(B)--
       (A) by striking out ``(A)'';
       (B) by inserting ``of'' after ``restrict the viewing''; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (13) by striking sections 702 and 703;
       (14) in section 704--
       (A) by striking subsections (b) and (d); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b);
       (15) in section 705(g) (as redesignated by section 
     304(25)), by striking ``within 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, the 
     Federal Communications Commission'' and inserting ``The 
     Commission'';
       (16) in section 710(f)--
       (A) by striking the first and second sentences; and
       (B) in the third sentence, by striking ``Thereafter, the 
     Commission'' and inserting ``The Commission'';
       (17) in section 712(a), by striking ``, within 120 days 
     after the effective date of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 
     1988,''; and
       (18) by striking section 713.
       (b) Amendments to the Communications Satellite Act of 
     1962.--The Communications Satellite Act of 1962 is amended--
       (1) in section 201(a)(1), by striking ``as expeditiously as 
     possible,'';
       (2) by striking sections 301 and 302 and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 301. CREATION OF CORPORATION.

       ``There is authorized to be created a communications 
     satellite corporation for profit which will not be an agency 
     or establishment of the United States Government.

     ``SEC. 302. APPLICABLE LAWS.

       ``The corporation shall be subject to the provisions of 
     this Act and, to the extent consistent with this Act, to the 
     District of Columbia Business Corporation Act. The right to 
     repeal, alter, or amend this Act at any time is expressly 
     reserved.'';
       (3) in section 304(a), by striking ``at a price not in 
     excess of $100 for each share and'';
       (4) in section 404--
       (A) by striking subsections (a) and (c); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (b) as section 404;
       (5) in section 503--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (a); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) of subsection (a) as 
     paragraph (2) of such subsection;
       (C) by striking subsection (b);
       (D) in subsection (g)--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (c)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)(3)''; and
       (ii) by striking the last sentence; and
       (E) by redesignating subsections (c) through (h) as 
     subsections (b) through (g), respectively;
       (5) by striking sections 505, 506, and 507; and
       (6) by redesignating section 508 as section 505.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4922 specifies a telecommunications 
carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for 
law enforcement purposes. It is the result of extensive negotiations 
among law enforcement, Congress, industry and the privacy community. I 
applaud Don Edwards, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and 
Constitutional Rights, ranking Member Henry Hyde and John Dingell, 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for helping to craft 
a bill that these diverse interests can live with. It is essential that 
we support the very real law enforcement objectives at the heart of the 
legislation without minimizing industry's legitimate concerns regarding 
both privacy protections and costs resulting from installing new 
technology to this end, the bill laudably protects public safety by 
requiring telecommunications carriers to be able to fulfill court 
authorized requests for interceptions without overreaching into 
protected privacy areas. At the same time, it requires law enforcement 
to pay retrofitting costs necessary to start up this legislation--up to 
$500 million over the next 4 years. Beyond that, carriers will only be 
required to incur reasonable costs to comply with the bill.
  I want to be very clear on one point: While there is no way 
Government can pay the costs of new technology associated with law 
enforcement wiretapping needs in perpetuity, I also believe that 
industry must receive fair reimbursement for some of their research, 
development, and start-up costs. Beyond that period of time, an 
equitable arrangement between Government and private industry must be 
reached. The proposal before the House is a tremendous improvement over 
prior treatment of this issue.
  Finally, it is also worth noting that this bill does not expand law 
enforcement authority to conduct these interceptions. In fact, the bill 
includes several provisions to improve the privacy and security in the 
telecommunications network.
  This is a good balance, and a good bill. I urge my colleagues to pass 
this important legislation.

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Jack Brooks,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing with respect to H.R. 4922, 
     which was ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary 
     on September 29. As you know, I have written to the Speaker 
     protesting the initial referral solely to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary, and asking that the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce receive an extended sequential referral once the 
     Committee on the Judiciary has filed its report. Enclosed 
     please find a copy of that letter for your reference.
       Since that time, the Committee staff (both majority and 
     minority) have been working with your staff to attempt to 
     resolve the problems articulated in the letter. They have 
     succeeded in crafting a compromise which addresses our 
     jurisdictional concerns, while preserving the essential 
     elements of H.R. 4922 as it was ordered reported by your 
     Committee.
       Specifically, the legislation has been redrafted and 
     reorganized to separate provisions that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of both of our committees from those which fall 
     exclusively within the jurisdiction of one or the other. 
     Title I of the text creates a free-standing statute that is 
     not codified, which governs the interception of digital and 
     other communications transmitted by telecommunications 
     carriers. This Title imposes new regulations on 
     communications carriers, a subject which is expressly part of 
     our Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. In my view, it ought to 
     be codified in Title 47 of the U.S. Code, which is where 
     other matters of this sort are codified.
       However, this Title also implicates the law enforcement 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. In 
     recognition of your legitimate claim for jurisdiction, in my 
     view jurisdiction over this Title should be shared by our two 
     committees.
       Title II amends Title 18 and falls exclusively within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
       Title III amends the Communications Act of 1934 and falls 
     exclusively within the jurisdictions of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce.
       Our Committee intends to insist on its request for 
     sequential referral. However, in light of the agreement that 
     has been reached by our two committees, and subject to it 
     being offered during the House consideration of the bill, the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce will not object to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4922 by the full House later today. I 
     do ask, however, that you insert a copy of this letter, 
     together with your response, into the Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                        John D. Dingell, Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear John: I am writing in response to your correspondence 
     dated October 4, 1994, regarding H.R. 4992, legislation to 
     make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate 
     in the interception of communications for law enforcement 
     purposes.
       As you know, our Committees have worked closely on this 
     legislation to address areas of common concern. I very much 
     appreciate your strong leadership and the efforts of other 
     Members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in working to 
     craft a mutually agreeable legislative product that serves to 
     maximize the protection of various law enforcement, privacy 
     and commercial interests.
       I acknowledge that the bill, as ordered reported by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, contains some subject matter 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of your Committee that would 
     render an appropriate referral of the legislation at this 
     time. I very much appreciate your willingness to allow the 
     House later today to consider H.R. 4922, as modified pursuant 
     to the discussions between our Committees. I further concur 
     with the comments in your letter regarding the division of 
     jurisdiction in the three titles of the legislation to be 
     considered today.
       Meanwhile, with best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                            Jack Brooks, Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which represents a joint 
effort by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, is needed to insure that technological advances in the 
telecommunications industry do not foreclose the ability of law 
enforcement to conduct court--authorized electronic surveillance. I am 
pleased to have been an original co-sponsor of this legislation with 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil on Constitutional Rights, Mr. 
Edwards.
  H.R. 4922, as amended seeks to carefully balance the needs of law 
enforcement, the interests of the telecommunications industry and the 
privacy rights of the American public in order to insure that law 
enforcement can continue to conduct court-authorized wiretaps.
  Earlier this year, the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional 
Rights held two joint hearings with the Senate Subcommittee on 
Technology and the Law. Our hearings revealed that obstacles to court-
authorized interceptions are already being encountered. An informal 
survey conducted by the FBI of Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement agencies in April of this year revealed 183 technology-
based problems encountered in attempts to conduct court-authorized 
electronic surveillance.
  The bill makes it clear that all telecommunications carriers will 
cooperate and assist in the interception of communications for law 
enforcement purposes. the definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' 
includes such service providers as local exchange carriers, 
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers [CAPs], cellular 
carriers, providers of personal communications services (PCS), 
satellite-based service providers, cable operators, and electric and 
other utilities that provide telecommunications services for hire to 
the public, and any other wireline or wireless service for hire to the 
public.
  The bill authorizes an appropriation of $500 million for fiscal years 
1995 through 1998, and for subsequent years, such sums as are necessary 
for telecommunications carriers to retrofit existing facilities to 
bring them into compliance with law enforcement requirements.
  Those covered by the bill have expressed concern that $500 million 
will not cover the cost of retrofitting existing facilities. Because we 
do not yet know the exact nature of the technologies that will be 
needed to satisfy the capability requirements, we cannot know, with 
certainty, exactly how much money will be needed to retrofit existing 
services and facilities. According to the GAO, ``until capability 
solutions and capacity requirements are better defined, it is virtually 
impossible to project a precise estimate of the reimbursement costs of 
this bill.''
  If the $500 million authorized in the bill is not appropriated, or if 
it not sufficient to cover retrofit costs, any equipment or services 
that the government cannot pay to retrofit are ``grandfathered,'' and 
do not have to be brought into compliance until they are replaced or 
upgraded in the ordinary course of business.
  After the 4 year transition period, which may be extended up to two 
additional years by order of the FCC, industry will pay to insure that 
new equipment and services meet the legislative requirements as defined 
by industry standards and specifications to the extent such compliance 
is reasonably achievable. In the event that compliance is not 
reasonably achievable, a telecommunications carrier may petition the 
FCC to determine whether costs of compliance would impose significant 
difficulty or expense based on 10 enumerated factors including public 
safety and national security, the impact on rates for basic residential 
telephone service and the like. If compliance is not reasonably 
achievable, and the Attorney General does not agree to reimburse, the 
carrier will not be required to pay to bring its services or features 
into compliance.

  In addition, to the extent that telecommunications carriers must 
install additional capacity to meet law enforcement needs, the bill 
requires the Government to pay for the increased capacity requirements.
  Court authorized electronic surveillance is one of law enforcement's 
most important and effective investigative tools. It is often the only 
means of preventing or solving serious crimes. Failure to pass this 
legislation will have dire consequences for law enforcement, public 
safety and our national security.
  This legislation is strongly supported by FBI Director Freeh and 
State and local law enforcement officials. I urge my colleagues to do 
so as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4922, which makes 
certain that law enforcement's needs for wiretaps are met as we march 
forward into the future.
  This bill seeks to balance the growth of the communications industry 
and its advances in technology, something my Subcommittee has taken 
pains to promote, with the legitimate needs of law enforcement for 
wiretap capabilities.
  The issue of wiretapping telephone lines has dogged constitutional, 
privacy, and telecommunications advocates for decades. In fact, wiretap 
law reflects a 65-year history between Congress and the courts. In 
1928, the Supreme Court first confronted the issue in Olmstead v United 
States. In this famous case, the Court held that tapping a telephone 
line does not constitute a ``search'' or ``seizure'' and therefore does 
not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case is most famous, however, 
for the dissent by Justice Brandeis, who argued that the Constitution 
protected citizens against wiretaps. In that great Justice's most 
memorable phrase, he wrote that:

       The Fourth Amendment protected against wiretaps because it 
     protected the right of privacy, which he defined as ``the 
     right to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights and 
     the right most valued by civilized men.''

  Congress responded to the Court's decision in Olmstead, and the force 
of Justice Brandeis' dissent, just 6 years later. In passing the 
Communications Act of 1934, Congress included a provision in section 
705, that states ``no person not being authorized by the sender shall 
intercept any communication and divulge or publish [its] existence, 
contents * * * or meaning.'' However, courts quickly construed section 
705 to permit Federal and State law enforcement to use a wiretap for 
investigation purposes, so long as they did not divulge any content by 
testifying about it in open court.

  Then, in 1967, the Supreme Court finally adopted Justice Brandeis' 
dissenting view, overruled Olmstead, and held that an eavesdropping 
does amount to a ``search or seizure'' and thus was protected by the 
Constitution. Just 1 year later, Congress again responded, by passing 
the 1968 Wiretap Act. This law makes wiretaps lawful by setting up a 
judicial process that law enforcement must go through to get a court-
ordered wiretap.
  But the story does not end there. Congress again responded to changes 
in computer and communications technology by passing the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act of 1986. This law, which was sponsored by 
Senator Leahy and Congressman Edwards, amended the 1968 Wiretap Act by 
protecting a new class of electronic communications, defined broadly to 
include everything from e-mail to databases. That legislation reflected 
an ongoing effort to update and clarify Federal wiretap laws, as the 
Senate Committee put it, ``in light of dramatic changes in new computer 
and telecommunications technologies.''
  Well today, we are back at the task of updating and clarifying our 
wiretap law again. This time, the changes in computer and 
telecommunications technology are not just dramatic, they are 
overwhelming. The growth of digital communications over the past 8 
years, the spread of fiber deeper into the local phone network, the 
spread and growth of wireless services--all of these developments 
converge to compel us to address legislatively the needs of law 
enforcement in the information age. The Federal Bureau of Investigation 
argues that as these advanced technologies get deployed, that the 
technology should not, in essence, repeal or modify the 1968 Wiretap 
Act. Instead, the Bureau argues, we must update and clarify our laws so 
that their ability to conduct wiretaps is maintained--not expanded and 
not diminished--just maintained.
  In working with the Judiciary Committee to resolve this matter, I 
have sought to come up with a policy that 1) protects the privacy 
interests of our citizens, 2) is mindful of the limited financial 
resources of taxpayers or ratepayers, 3) meets the legitimate needs of 
law enforcement, and 4) does not unduly interfere with our 
telecommunications industry, which is racing to the future with 
advances in communications technology.
  The bill before the House today, carefully crafted in consultation 
between our two committees, represents a balanced and workable approach 
to resolving each of those issues. I urge the House to approve this 
bill.
  In addition, I want to comment in detail on several provisions in the 
bill. The term ``information services'' encompasses both electronic 
publishing, which has meaning under the MFJ and FCC and court 
interpretations, and electronic messaging services, which is a term 
broadly defined to encompass electronic mail, electronic forms 
transfer, electronic document interchange, and electronic data 
interchange. The term ``telecommunications carrier'' is not a defined 
term in the Communications Act of 1934, but the term is defined broadly 
to include common carriers, which means, at minimum both a ``common 
carrier,'' as defined in section 3(h), and a provider of ``telephone 
exchange service,'' as such term is defined in section 3(r). 
Consequently, all local exchange carriers and long distance companies 
operating as common carriers will be covered. In addition, the 
provision in (4)(B)(ii) applies to persons or entities that offer a 
service that represents a substantial substitute for a common carrier 
service. This provision, coupled with the language in (4)(A), is 
designed to sweep broadly. However, in recognition that not all common 
carriers need to be covered by this Act, and in recognition that law 
enforcement does not need capability assistance from all carriers, the 
legislation also directs the Commission, in paragraph (8)(C)(ii), to 
exclude certain carriers.
  Section 104 requires the Attorney General to publish in the Federal 
Register notice of the actual capacity and maximum capacity that law 
enforcement will need from telecommunications carriers. Section 
104(a)(2) requires the Attorney General to identify capacity required 
at specific locations, and to base the notice on the type of equipment 
or service involved, or the kind or type of carrier. The purpose behind 
this provision is two-fold. One, to ensure that carriers receive 
adequate and specific notice from the Attorney General about the needs 
of law enforcement with respect to a particular carrier in a particular 
area. This notice is essential to enable a carrier to meet its 
obligations under section 104(d). Second, this provision encourages the 
Attorney General to recognize differences among telecommunications 
carriers, and to take those differences into account when issuing a 
notice.
  Section 105 represents a significant expansion of privacy protection 
for citizens everywhere. It ensures that wiretapping technology does 
not become so easy as to obviate the need for telephone company 
participation, which serves as a check against an end-run of the 
judicial system. The Energy and Commerce Committee found this interest 
so compelling, that in title III of the bill we direct the Federal 
Communications Commission to adopt special rules to enforce this 
requirement, and to have companies submit their procedures for 
safeguarding those rules with the Commission so that this preventive 
measure is subject to public notice and not diluted.
  Section 109 establishes the principle that for equipment or 
facilities or services deployed on or before the date of enactment, 
that the Attorney General, subject to the availability of 
appropriations, may agree to compensate carriers for all reasonable 
cost directly associated with necessary modifications to bring 
equipment, facilities, or services into compliance with the 
capabilities requirements set forth in section 103. Section 109(b) sets 
forth the rule for equipment, facilities, or services deployed after 
the date of enactment. The Commission is directed to determine, upon a 
petition from a carrier or a manufacturer or any other interested 
party, whether compliance with section 103 is reasonably achievable for 
equipment deployed after the date of enactment. The legislation, in 
turn, elaborates on reasonably achievable as meaning whether compliance 
would impose significant difficulty or expense.

  Section 109(b)(1) lists several factors the Commission should 
consider in determining whether compliance is reasonably achievable. 
Those factors direct the Commission's attention to, inter alia, the 
impact on rates for basic residential telephone service, the need to 
protect privacy interests, the need to meet law enforcement's needs in 
a cost-effective manner, the policy of the United States to encourage 
development and deployment of new technologies and services, and the 
competitive impact that compliance will have on the offering of the 
equipment, facilities, or services. These factors are designed to give 
the Commission direction so that the following goals are realized: (1) 
Costs to consumers are kept low, so that ``gold-plating'' by the 
industry is kept in check; (2) the legitimate needs of law enforcement 
are met, but that law enforcement does not engage in ``gold-plating'' 
of its demands; (3) privacy interests of all Americans are protected; 
(4) the goal of encouraging competition in all forms of 
telecommunications is not undermined, and the fact of wiretap 
compliance is not used as either a sword or a shield in realization of 
that goal.
  Section 109(e) also directs the Attorney General to promulgate 
regulations designed to minimize the costs to the Federal Government. 
These regulations serve the purpose of enabling the Attorney General to 
assess fairly the expenses incurred by carriers, and to reimburse them 
accordingly.
  In administering the rulemaking duties under this Act, the 
Commission, and the Attorney General, must be careful to protect the 
genuine proprietary concerns of manufacturers and carriers. (By genuine 
I mean information that the agency beliefs would present a harm to the 
competitive position of a company if released.) The proceedings 
required by this Act may necessitate carriers and manufacturers to file 
proprietary information which, if disclosed, could affect adversely the 
competitive position of the company or service at issue. The Commission 
has procedures in place, under 47 CFR 0.459, .461, to honor requests 
for confidentiality and to grant review of confidential documents on a 
limited and protected basis. The Commission should make use of these 
procedures so that all parties, including public interest and privacy 
advocates, can have access to the information, but that such 
information is handled pursuant to strict guidelines. The practice at 
the U.S. Trade Representative to handle dumping cases is generally 
acknowledged as workable and well administered. The Commission, and the 
Attorney General, should seek to establish similar rules to handle 
genuine proprietary information.

  Title III amends the Communications Act of 1934 by requiring the 
Commission to promulgate rules enforcing the Communications Assistance 
for Law Enforcement Act in accordance with its Communications Act, 
title II, regulations. This provision in new section 229(a), coupled 
with the systems security and integrity provisions in subsections (b) 
and (c), and the penalties and enforcement provisions in subsection 
(d), ensures that the Commission will be able to enforce the security, 
privacy, and cost-effective rules mandated by this Act.
  Finally, title III contains a long list of technical corrections and 
clerical amendments. These amendments are the definition of technical 
amendments--spelling errors and bad references--but are a necessary 
step from time to time.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas, Chairman 
Brooks, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell], especially the 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Edwards], and Senator Leahy, who have 
made today's legislation possible.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4922, a 
bill to amend title 18, U.S. Code, regarding the interception of 
communications for law enforcement purposes. This bill represents the 
hard work of many Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committee members 
over the past several months. I want to command Mr. Edwards, in 
particular, for his leadership role on this issue.
  This legislation is necessary because advancements in technology that 
have modernized our national telecommunications network at a pace that 
has outstripped the ability of law enforcement to carry out its law 
enforcement obligations under Federal wiretap laws. Specifically, new 
features such as call forwarding, three-way conferencing, and voice 
recognition calling have made it impossible for wiretaps to be 
conducted.
  I should note that I have never witnessed Federal, State, and local 
law enforcement officials so united on the need for passage of a 
legislative proposal. I have heard from officials at all three levels 
and I specifically want to commend FBI Director Freeh for his hard work 
on this legislation and Sheriff Klevenhagers of Houston. I also want to 
complement the telephone industry and the privacy community for their 
important contributions to this legislation.
  This bill will compensate telephone companies for retrofitting their 
networks to allow law enforcement to conduct authorized wiretaps in 
light of currently available telephone features and services. In the 
future, as new technologies come on line, the telephone industry will 
be responsible for making sure that wiretaps may be conducted. The bill 
asks the FCC to determine whether the costs are reasonably achievable, 
and if they are not, we will need to seek Federal funding to pay for 
the network changes necessary.
  I again want to commend the sponsor, Mr. Edwards, and Messrs. 
Dingell, Moorhead, Brooks, Fish, Hyde, Markey, Boucher, and Oxley for 
their hard work on this matter.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Edwards] chairman of the subcommittee 
who has done so much to craft this legislation and who is going to be 
retiring this year, and who we will not be able to replace. We will get 
a new Member, but he will never replace Don Edwards.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for those 
gracious remarks.
  (Mr. EDWARDS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have explained 
this bill correctly and in detail, and I will not repeat it, but I do 
want to thank my chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey] and, of course, our ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], who has been of such enormous help in this 
difficult bill. It was a difficult bill to write, because it dealt with 
a subject that makes us all uneasy, which is a constitutional issue 
having to do with the fourth amendment.
  We were determined when we started that we preserve the principle 
that we established in 1968 in the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets 
Act, that there must be a warrant by a court before there is any kind 
of listening in. In addition, we wanted to make sure that all privacy 
considerations and civil liberties be protected, and that is what we 
did. We drew the bill very narrowly, and in important instances we 
tightened existing controls over the police and the FBI. So the result 
is tougher standards for the FBI and the police in going through any 
kind of wiretapping.
  So I think we did a good job. I guarantee that we protected to the 
best of our ability the civil liberties of Americans.
  The FBI came to us several years ago and said that new technologies 
were giving them increasing problems carrying out wiretaps.
  We said, you have to prove there is a problem before we legislate.
  Well, they did their homework, and they proved there is a problem. 
They have submitted 183 cases, from all over the country, involving 
many of the new technologies and services.
  The industry also has admitted there are technological problems.
  So we worked with industry, the FBI, and privacy advocates to develop 
a bill. Original administration proposals had no privacy provisions and 
would have given the FBI control over the phone system.
  There was a great deal of compromise, and the result is before the 
House today.
  The bill requires common carriers to meet basic functional 
requirements allowing law enforcement to continue to carry out 
wiretaps.
  The bill allows industry to develop the standards for meeting those 
requirements.
  It provides $500 million over 4 years to pay the costs of modifying 
existing equipment to comply.
  The question of costs was very difficult. The bill before you takes a 
reasonable middle course. Industry will be required to bear only the 
reasonable costs of compliance after 4 years. The FCC will determine 
what is reasonable based on factors specified in the bill.
  We dealt with the scope issue very carefully. We cover common 
carriers, including competitive access providers and companies such as 
teleport.
  We have worked with the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Boucher] on the 
question of cost, and he has substantially improved the bill. The 
contributions made by the Energy and Commerce Committee have been 
tremendously helpful.
  The bill improves privacy protection. We raise the standard for 
access to transactional records, and require a court order. We improve 
the protections for cordless phones and cellular phones. We place 
limits on the ability of law enforcement to use portable phones as 
tracking devices.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, I 
want to again congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] 
the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and 
Constitutional Rights. No one is more sensitive to the fragility of 
civil liberties and civil rights than he. This bill would not have 
passed without his attention and care and concern, and I think the 
country owes him a debt of gratitude for his work in this and so many 
other things.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Digital 
Telephony Act of 1994. As mentioned, the purpose of this bill is to 
safeguard the ability of law enforcement agencies to carry out court-
ordered wiretaps.
  As a former FBI special agent, I know that the court-authorized 
interception of communications is one of our most important tools in 
the investigation of criminal conduct. By necessity, wiretaps are 
relied upon in the investigation of drug kingpins, terrorists, and 
others who would use telecommunications networks to further their 
criminal ends.
  Currently, the telecommunications industry is undertaking 
revolutionary changes in its technology, changes that could make it 
impossible for police agencies to execute lawful court orders. In some 
instances, cellular technology and new digital features have already 
frustrated court-ordered wiretaps.
  I want to emphasize that this measure would not expand the authority 
of law enforcement in any way. It would merely ensure that it remains 
technically feasible to access communications. Those who suggest that 
this legislation gives Government new power to pry into people's lives 
are simply mistaken.
  One area of controversy that arose during consideration of the bill 
concerned the issue of cost--specifically, how great the expense of 
implementation will be and who should bear it. I want to state my 
satisfaction with the compromise that has been reached, but also 
express my willingness to revisit the issue if necessary. In the 
meantime, I have asked the Office of Technology Assessment to provide 
an analysis of the cost of implementing the bill.
  I wish to take this opportunity to commend FBI Director Freeh, his 
able staff, and the Committee on the Judiciary for their work on this 
legislation. I also would like to thank Chairman Dingell, Chairman 
Markey, Congressman Moorhead and Congressman Fields for their 
contributions, along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. Speaker, I specifically want to point out how hard the new FBI 
Director Freeh worked on this particular legislation. Had it not been 
for him, we would not be here tonight on the suspension calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, the need for legislative action is clear. Without it, 
U.S. authorities will be unequipped to protect the Nation from 
organized crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, espionage, and other 
threats.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this vital legislation.

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                              Federal Bureau of Investigation,

                                     Washington, DC, Oct. 4, 1994.
     Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
     U.S. House of Representatives
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Oxley: I am writing to request your 
     support for enactment of the ``Communications Assistance for 
     Law Enforcement Act,'' H.R. 4922. It is scheduled to be voted 
     upon today under suspension of the rules.
       This legislation is of extreme importance to all federal, 
     state, and local law enforcement agencies. The bill has the 
     full support of every major law enforcement organization in 
     the country as well as the entire intelligence community.
       If enacted, this legislation will prevent new 
     telecommunications technologies from continuing to impede law 
     enforcement agencies' lawful conduct of court-ordered 
     electronic surveillance, without in any way diminishing the 
     privacy of our citizens or hampering the deployment of new 
     telecommunications technology. Indeed, the legislation 
     contains numerous new privacy-enhancing provisions. Passage 
     of this legislation is extremely critical, since without it 
     effective law enforcement, the public safety, and national 
     security will be put at unacceptable risk. Failure to enact 
     it will rob law enforcement officers of a critical tool they 
     use to fight terrorism, drug-trafficking cartels, organized 
     and violent crime, and other life-threatening felonies.
       This legislation is the product of an intense and diligent 
     effort by the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, as well 
     as the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to achieve a 
     delicate balance of law enforcement, privacy, and telephone 
     industry interests and concerns. It is sponsored on the House 
     side by Congressmen Edwards and Hyde. This legislation is a 
     remarkable achievement because of its balanced, fair, and 
     equitable treatment of all affected parties, both with regard 
     to responsibilities and cost allocation.
       Every day that passes without this essential legislation 
     means that law enforcement will be increasingly stripped of a 
     great weapon against crime and a vital shield to protect the 
     public. Just last week a wiretap in a terrorism investigation 
     was stymied because of digital technology. Similarly, every 
     day that passes means that the cost of solving the problem 
     will grow ever greater. I can't emphasize too strongly that 
     enactment of this legislation cannot wait.
       I trust that you will appreciate both the extreme 
     significance of this problem, as well as the extreme 
     importance of this well-crafted legislative solution to 
     correct it. On behalf of the entire law enforcement and 
     intelligence communities, I urgently request your help to 
     ensure that we in law enforcement can continue to do our job 
     of effectively protecting the American public against the 
     violent gangsters and terrorists who prey on society through 
     your support for passage of H.R. 4922.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Louis J. Freeh,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from Director Freeh.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poshard). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4922, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule 
I, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this 
motion will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________