[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             EDWARDS-LEAHY DIGITAL TELEPHONY BILL--HR 4922

  Mr. LEAHY. I rise today to urge the Senate to pass H.R. 4922, the 
Edwards-Leahy Digital Telephony bill, to expand privacy protection for 
our phone and computer conversations and to preserve law enforcement's 
ability to execute court orders for wiretaps.
  Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have sounded alarm 
bells about losing their ability to conduct wiretaps because new 
communications features and services are being deployed with no thought 
as to how they might affect law enforcement.
  I, for one, do not want law enforcement to lose its capability to use 
this powerful tool in its crime-fighting arsenal.
  Wiretaps produce powerful evidence against our most dangerous 
criminals, at the lowest risk to the agents involved. We don't have to 
make deals with criminals, protect witnesses, or expose agents to 
danger when police can convict criminals with tapes of their own 
conversations.
  At the same time that I want to preserve law enforcement's wiretap 
capability, I want to make sure we do not jeopardize important privacy 
rights of all Americans or frustrate the development of new 
communications technologies.
  I have worked very closely with Congressman Don Edwards to craft a 
bill to revise our wiretap law so that law enforcement's ability to 
execute court orders for wiretaps is preserved while expanding our 
privacy protections.
  First, to ensure law enforcement's continued ability to conduct 
court-authorized wiretaps in light of new and emerging digital 
technologies, the bill sets forth four wiretap capability requirements 
that telecommunications carriers would be required to meet.
  This means that when the phone companies set about designing and 
deploying new services or features, they must consider law 
enforcement's needs among the numerous other factors that go into such 
designs.
  Just as phone companies make sure that when they plug-in new 
services, the phone system is not shorted out, so, too, we do not want 
to short-change the American people's need for effective law 
enforcement.
  Second, on the privacy front, the bill expands privacy and security 
protection for our telephone and computer communications in ways that 
were first recommended to me by a Privacy and Technology Task Force I 
organized in 1991. The protections of the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act are extended to cordless phones and certain data 
communications transmitted by radio. In addition, this bill increases 
the protection for transactional data on electronic communications 
services by requiring law enforcement to get a court order for access 
to those records.
  The bill further protects privacy by requiring telecommunications 
systems to protect communications not authorized to be intercepted and 
by restricting the ability of law enforcement to use pen register 
devices for tracking purposes or for obtaining transactional 
information.
  The bill sets up a mechanism for ensuring law enforcement's wiretap 
capability needs while at the same time deferring to industry to decide 
how best to meet law enforcement's wiretap needs. No Government 
official will be put in charge of the future of our telecommunications 
industry. This legislation leaves it to industry in the first instance. 
If industry is ready to deploy a new phone feature or service, but 
cannot yet figure out how to give law enforcement access for lawful 
wiretaps, a court must take that into consideration and may not stop 
deployment of the service. On the other hand, if industry can fix the 
service to assist law enforcement, it must do so.
  This bill preserves a legitimate law enforcement tool without 
jeopardizing privacy rights or frustrating innovation and the 
development of new technologies or undercutting the competitiveness of 
America's high-tech industries. Finally, the bill improves the privacy 
of mobile phones by expanding criminal penalties for stealing the 
service from legitimate users.
  Third, to encourage innovation in telecommunications services, the 
bill states expressly that law enforcement agencies may not require the 
specific design of telecommunications systems or features, nor prohibit 
adoption of any such design, by any telecommunications provider.
  At the same time that I want to preserve law enforcement's wiretap 
capability, I want to make sure we do not jeopardize important privacy 
rights of all Americans or frustrate the development of new 
communications technologies.
  I have worked very closely with Congressman Don Edwards to craft a 
bill to revise our wiretap law so that law enforcement's ability to 
execute court orders for wiretaps is preserved while expanding our 
privacy protections.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  I want to thank Senator Hatch and Chairman Biden, who are co-
sponsors, and Senator Simpson for supporting and working with me to 
ensure passage of this important legislation. Senator Hatch, in 
particular, has been essential in clearing this matter of last minute 
problems and allowing for the action we take today. He understands the 
importance of the legislation and has worked hard to persuade our 
colleagues that we should pass this measure without delay.
  I especially want to commend a retiring colleague or ours from the 
House, the distinguished Don Edwards. This measure could not have been 
developed without his commitment and dedication to resolving an impasse 
that had plagued law enforcement, telecommunications providers and 
privacy advocates for years. At a time when he could have sat back and 
enjoyed accolades for his longstanding public service in defense of 
individual rights and freedoms, he took on a daunting task.
  And in typical fashion, Don Edwards' good sense, keen insight and 
determination made possible the joint drafting and revision of this 
important legislation and successful House passage.
  I also commend Chairmen Brooks and Dingell and Congressman Markey of 
the House for their commitment to seeing this matter through to 
conclusion. They have each worked to improve the bill and we are 
grateful for their efforts and cooperation in moving this matter 
forward when we could have been sidetracked in jurisdictional disputes 
or distracted by some who continue to seek to defeat this measure 
through delaying tactics.
  Most importantly, I need to acknowledge the efforts of our director 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis J. Freeh for working 
tirelessly and in good faith to craft the best legislation that we all 
could. It was Judge Freeh who sounded the call on this issue earlier 
this year. He and the dedicated men and Women of the FBI, the National 
District Attorneys Association, the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police and countless prosecutors, sheriffs, police chiefs, state and 
local public officials and concerned citizens have participated in our 
hearings and proceedings and shared with us their views.
  All have been helpful but this bill is being considered today for 
final passage in no small measure because of the personal attention and 
commitment to effective law enforcement of Louis J. Freeh. The American 
people are well served by this tough and fair man, a person I am proud 
to call my friend.
  I Would be remise if I did not also mention the important 
contributions of the Attorney General and the White House to the 
progress of this legislation. Attorney General Reno has been most 
supportive of our efforts.
  The Vice President, who had worked on these matters while our 
colleague here in the Senate, was extremely helpful and attentive and 
helped keep us all on track. Finally, I wish to thank the President and 
his Staff Secretary, my good friend John Podesta, for their constant 
commitment to improving privacy protections while preserving law 
enforcement's ability to execute lawful, court-ordered wiretaps. 
Without their active participation, we would not be here today.
  I thank all those who have worked with us over the last several 
months to try to find a solution to what had seemed an insurmountable 
problem for more than 4 years. The Business Software Alliance, the 
Electronic Frontier Foundation and telecommunications companies who 
have worked with us to clarify the bill and resolve initial concerns 
are particularly to be commended.
  Finally, I want to acknowledge publicly a few people whom I will be 
thanking personally for their extraordinary contributions. The 
principal staff work on this most difficult measure has been performed 
by my senior counsel Beryl Howell and Jim Dempsey from Congressman 
Edwards' staff.
  Along with them Nelson Cunningham from Chairman Biden's staff and Ken 
Mendelson from Chairman Brooks' staff, Manus Cooney of Senator Hatch's 
staff, Warren Schaeffer of Senator Simpson's staff, John Windhausen 
from Chairman Hollings' staff, David Leach of Chairman Dingell's staff 
and Gerry Waldron from Congressman Markey's staff, have all helped 
produce a bill of which we can all be proud. Beryl is a former Federal 
prosecutor whose practical experience and creative problem solving were 
indispensable to this project. Her House counterpart, Jim Dempsey, is a 
veteran of these wars whose depth of understanding of both the 
technological and legislative issues is unequalled. Together their 
persistence, patience and professionalism made this possible.

                          ____________________