[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7765-S7766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 1947. A bill to provide for a process to authorize the use of 
clone pagers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


               the clone pager authorization act of 1996

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I recently made some remarks on the 
Senate floor about the current administration's record on crime. The 
facts are clear: The administration's actions on crime do not meet its 
rhetoric.
  To stop crime, we have to do more. That doesn't mean another 
rhetorical assault on crime--or even a flashy 10-point program. Rather, 
we have to do more of the little things that--when you put them all 
together--make a big difference.
  The most important of these is giving law enforcement officials the 
tools they need to do their jobs. Today, I am introducing legislation 
that will help us do that.
  The bill I am introducing today would simply rectify an imbalance in 
current Federal law which makes it more difficult for law enforcement 
officials to fight drug trafficking. Today, drug traffickers have taken 
advantage of technological advances to advance their own criminal 
interests.
  Drug traffickers--on a regular basis--use digital display paging 
devices--better known as beepers--in transacting their business. They 
do this because it gives them the freedom to run their criminal 
enterprise out of any available phone booth, and to avoid police 
surveillance. If law enforcement officials knew from whom they were 
receiving the calls to their beepers it would certainly aid efforts in 
tracking down drug traffickers.
  The technology now exists to allow law enforcement to receive the 
digital display message, without intercepting the content of any 
conversation or message. It is called a clone pager. This clone pager 
is programmed identically to the suspect's pager and allows law 
enforcement to receive the digital displays at the same time as the 
suspect.
  This device functions identically to a pen register. Mr. President, 
as you may know, a pen register is a device which law enforcement 
attaches to a phone line to decode the numbers which have called a 
specific telephone. Like a clone pager, the pen register only 
intercepts phone numbers, not the content of any conversation or 
message.
  Since both devices serve the same purpose, a reasonable person would 
conclude that both the system for receiving authorization to use these 
devices, and the procedures mandated by the courts once the 
authorization was granted would be the same. However, in both cases it 
is not.
  Under current law, the requirements for obtaining authorization to 
use a clone pager are much more stringent than they are for using a pen 
register. I would like to briefly outline the differences.
  In order to obtain authorization to use a pen register, a Federal 
prosecutor must certify to a district court judge the phone number to 
which the pen register will be attached, the phone company that 
delivers service to that number, and that the pen register serves a 
legitimate law enforcement purpose. In other words, the prosecutor must 
show only that the use of the pen register is based on an ongoing 
investigation. The district court judge may then grant the 
authorization on a mere finding that the prosecutor has made the 
required certification. The pen register can then be used for a period 
of 60 days--with no requirement that law enforcement report pen 
register activity to the court.
  In contrast, the U.S. attorney for a particular district must sign 
off on a request for clone pager authorization. Once this occurs, a 
prosecutor may

[[Page S7766]]

then go before a district court judge where he must show that there is 
probable cause to suspect an individual has committed a crime--a much 
higher standard than what is required for a pen register authorization. 
He must also detail what other investigative techniques have been used, 
why they have not been successful, and why they will continue to be 
unsuccessful. Moreover, the prosecutor must disclose other available 
investigative techniques and why they are unlikely to be successful. 
Only after all of this is done can authorization to use a clone pager 
be granted.
  But these are not the only differences in treatment. After the 
authorization is granted, it can only be used for 30 days. During that 
30 days, the prosecutor must report activity from the clone pager to 
the issuing judge at least once every 2 weeks.
  I do not believe that the authorization disparity in authorization 
for these two devices is warranted.
  The legislation that I am introducing today would simply amend the 
Federal code to end this disparity. This bill would give law 
enforcement agents ready access, with warranted limitations, to the 
tools they need to do their jobs. This bill will bring Federal law 
enforcement into the 21st century. The drug traffickers are already 
there. It's time for law and order to catch up with them.
                                 ______