[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H4868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY ADVERTISEMENT CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1840) to provide a law enforcement exception to the 
prohibition on the advertising of certain electronic devices.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1840

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Technology 
     Advertisement Clarification Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISING CERTAIN 
                   DEVICES.

       Section 2512 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) It shall not be unlawful under this section to 
     advertise for sale a device described in subsection (1) of 
     this section if the advertisement is mailed, sent, or carried 
     in interstate or foreign commerce solely to a domestic 
     provider of wire or electronic communication service or to an 
     agency of the United States, a State, or a political 
     subdivision thereof which is duly authorized to use such 
     device.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Delahunt] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1840, the Law Enforcement Technology Advertisement 
Clarification Act, makes a small change to section 2512 of title 18, 
United States Code. The section states that any person who places in 
any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication, any 
advertisement of any electronic, mechanical, or other device primarily 
useful for the purposes of surreptitious interception shall be fined 
and imprisoned. Thus, current law rightfully prohibits the widespread 
advertisement of electronic interception devices.
  Unfortunately, this blanket prohibition against all advertisements 
includes advertisements to legitimate law enforcement users. Police 
departments may not receive mailings from companies which manufacture 
electronic equipment informing them that such equipment has been 
updated and improved.
  Advances in the technology of electronic devices are being made at a 
staggering pace. One example is body microphones which are used 
frequently by undercover officers. These devices have been miniaturized 
and disguised through technological advancements and it is now almost 
impossible to tell if an officer is wearing one. Technological 
improvements like these specially in the area of undercover work can 
quite literally save police officers' lives. It is therefore essential 
that the manufacturers or distributors of this technology be able to 
contact law enforcement agencies and make them aware of improvements. 
That is the only purpose of this legislation.
  It is certainly very important to protect privacy rights of every 
citizen in this country, and this bill does not grant any new authority 
to law enforcement in the area of electronic interception. Although law 
enforcement may already legally use devices intended for surreptitious 
interception, nothing in this bill expands existing law. This change 
only relates to advertisement of such equipment though subcommittee 
staff and industry representatives who work closely with the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation to ensure that this language will only provide 
relief to companies that manufacture law enforcement related equipment, 
and I would like to thank Director Freeh for his assistance with this 
legislation.
  Again the sole purpose of this bill is to allow for the advertisement 
of such equipment to police departments. It is a very small change but 
one which could have a very big impact for police departments around 
the country, and I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will be very brief.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for 
introducing this bill. It is straightforward, it is a sensible 
exception to that broad prohibition which he alluded to on the 
advertising of electronic surveillance technology. As he indicated, 
current law prohibits manufacturers from advertising such devices even 
to legitimate law enforcement agencies. This bill would simply allow 
such advertising as long as the recipient of the advertising is duly 
authorized to use these particular devices.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1840.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________