[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 21 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H857-H863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WIRELESS PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1998

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 377

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2369) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 
     to strengthen and clarify prohibitions on electronic 
     eavesdropping, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Commerce. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     committee on Commerce now printed in the bill. Each section 
     of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill 
     for amendment, the Chairman of the committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open 
rule to H.R. 2369 which provides 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Commerce. The rule also waives points of order against 
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the 3-day 
availability of committee reports.
  House Resolution 377 also makes the Committee on Commerce amendment 
in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that it shall be 
considered as read.
  The rule allows for priority recognition to Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Votes may be 
postponed during consideration of the bill, and voting time may be 
reduced to 5 minutes if the postponed vote follows a 15-minute vote. 
Finally, the rule provides one motion to reconsider, with or without 
instructions.
  The right to privacy is one of the most sacred rights our Founding 
Fathers fought and died to establish. Since the early days of our 
Nation, subsequent generations have defended this right. Today advanced 
technology provides the latest threat to each individual's privacy.
  I was shocked to hear during testimony before the Committee on Rules 
yesterday that the FBI actually had to stop using cellular phones 
during the investigation of the TWA Flight 800 disaster because they 
were being intercepted by members of the press corps. We have to put a 
stop to that sort of thing.
  It is not the high-tech geniuses that we have to worry about. Off-
the-shelf scanners are easily modified to turn them into electronic 
stalking devices. Simply clip the correct wire and someone can listen 
in in your private conversations. An entire industry which produces 
these intrusive devices has sprung up.
  H.R. 2369 is a bipartisan bill which will clearly permit the 
modification of scanners. It requires the FCC to develop regulations 
which extend existing protections to new services, including personal 
communications services, protected paging, and specialized mobile 
services. H.R. 2369 clearly states that intercepting wireless 
communications is illegal.
  Finally, the bill requires that the FCC must investigate violations 
under this law. H.R. 2369 is a bipartisan bill which moved quickly 
through the Committee on Commerce and should be supported by the entire 
House. I urge all my colleagues to support this open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 377 is an open rule allowing for full 
and free debate on a bill that seeks to enhance privacy for all 
commercial users of cellular technology, both analog and digital. H.R. 
2369 takes into account the development of new technologies in digital 
cellular and digital personal communications services, the generations 
beyond analog wireless communication.
  The bill also prohibits the manufacture or modification of off-the-
shelf radio scanners which would be capable of intercepting digital 
cellular telephone communications. It is already illegal to manufacture 
or import such equipment capable of intercepting analog cellular 
communication; this legislation advances Federal law to deal with 
advances in technology since the law was enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation requires the Federal Communications 
Commission to step up its enforcement of existing laws, as well as the 
new prohibitions which will be imposed by this proposal. This 
legislation makes a significant change in current law by providing that 
the act of scanning cellular communications is in and of itself 
illegal. Thus, the manufacture or the possession of the equipment 
capable of scanning these private conversations, as well as the actual 
scanning of private cellular communications, will be illegal.
  Mr. Speaker, with enhanced enforcement on the part of the FCC, 
perhaps some of the predatory practices which threaten the privacy of 
the millions of cellular conversations that take place each and every 
day can be stopped.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was unanimously reported from the Committee on 
Commerce, and is one of importance in today's world of rapidly changing 
technological development. I urge support of this open rule and support 
of the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
yielding me time and I rise in strong support of this open rule.
  I commend my friend from Louisiana, Chairman Tauzin, for his 
leadership on this issue. He's right--we need to tighten current laws 
on wireless privacy. It's important to ensure that our constituents are 
afforded privacy protections when they are using their cell phones or 
other wireless devices. But we should remember that under current law 
it is already illegal to tap into wireless conversaiton--both Congress 
and the FCC have spoken on this matter.

[[Page H858]]

  It is abundantly clear that telecommunications technology is 
exceeding our regulatory protective efforts. As Chairman Tauzin 
testified in Rules Committee yesterday, with the clip of a wire an off-
the-shelf scanner can become a stalking device. Even FBI agents have 
testified that they no longer use their cellular phones for fear of 
being tapped.
  H.R. 2369 makes some good improvements and toughens the penalties in 
certain cases--this is progress. But we need to recognize that no law 
will guarantee our privacy without rigorous enforcement of the law. As 
the cellular industry grows so will this problem--today's scanner 
crisis will be something far different tomorrow. What we can and must 
do is insist that the folks we charge with administering and enforcing 
these laws do so. I am hopeful that his commonsense legislation will 
send a strong message that we are serious about publishing those 
individuals who perpetrate these assaults on personal privacy.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule as well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Myrick). Pursuant to House Resolution 
377 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2369.

                              {time}  1041


                     IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2369) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen and 
clarify prohibitions on electronic eavesdropping, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Calvert in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin, let me take a moment to thank the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for 
his outstanding effort on this important matter, and the ranking member 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). 
They have done fine work on this issue, and deserve the appreciation of 
the House. It is only because of their efforts that we are able to 
present this bipartisan package of amendments to the current wireless 
privacy law contained in H.R. 2369.
  The House should know that while the Committee on Commerce learned 
about the problems of wireless privacy laws as a result of a phone call 
between the leaders of the House that was intercepted by a Florida 
couple, wireless privacy is not a partisan issue. The Clinton White 
House has to routinely remind its employees not to use cellular or 
pager communications for sensitive material because of eavesdropping. I 
believe all Members of this House would like their cellular calls to 
remain private.
  In my own case, I had my cellular number pirated by somebody with a 
device, and ended up getting bills for calls from Baltimore and 
Annapolis when the House was in session.
  H.R. 2369 is an effort to clarify that not all wireless 
communications are in the public domain. The airwaves are a public 
good, but the public is not free to intercept all wireless 
communications that just happen to pass through the air nearby. 
Congress made a decision long ago to protect private wireless 
conversations, and reaffirmed it in 1992. Private wireless 
conversations deserve privacy protections from unwanted listeners. 
Public communications, where there is no expectation of privacy, do 
not.
  H.R. 2369 places new restrictions on scanner manufacturers to protect 
the development of the new wireless communications. The bill extends 
prohibitions on scanners capable of intercepting cellular frequency to 
other wireless technologies such as personal communications services 
and protected paging and specialized mobile radio services. Thus, we 
are making the determination that scanners should not be capable of 
intercepting these new communication services. This is the right policy 
to make.
  Let me make it clear, though, that H.R. 2369 does not outlaw scanners 
nor restrict the manufacturers of scanners that enable scanning public 
communications.

                              {time}  1045

  This body recognizes that people use scanners for legitimate 
purposes. Our Nation's public safety community uses scanners to monitor 
emergency calls, coordinate appropriate responses, and provide 
assistance to our citizens in need. Congress has always had a strong 
appreciation for the members of the public safety community. We want to 
make sure that the public safety officials that put their lives on the 
line every day for our constituents are not threatened by undue scanner 
prohibitions. Scanners are not necessarily an evil.
  However, it is also clear that some people use scanners for harmful, 
inappropriate activities. At the hearing on this issue, we learned that 
the news media is one of the largest violators of the law, often 
interfering with criminal or sensitive investigations of the police or 
enforcement agencies for their own gain.
  To address this problem, H.R. 2369 tightens the prohibitions on 
intercepting wireless communications. These changes will expand the 
range of fines for violators and will make interception alone illegal. 
The changes will also force the Federal Communications Commission to 
investigate and enforce penalties for violators of these communications 
statutes.
  Together, the new scanner restrictions and the heightened privacy 
standards will increase consumer security and privacy. Nothing can 
guarantee complete privacy for wireless communications. We must try to 
increase the privacy afforded users step-by-step.
  H.R. 2369 does take the next positive step, and I ask all Members to 
support H.R. 2369. It is a balanced bill that will go a long way to 
help wireless communication users without threatening the legitimate 
use of scanners.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the subcommittee, for the exemplary 
work which he has done on this legislation. It is very important 
legislation and it is legislation that really does help to fill a 
vacuum which has been created because of the advent of the digital era.
  Mr. Chairman, I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), 
chairman of the full committee, for his work in making sure that this 
legislation is moved quickly, constructed properly, and that the 
American public get this protection as quickly as possible.
  I also express my thanks on our side to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) and all the Members who have been very much concerned 
about this legislation, who as well deserve credit for how quickly we 
have moved it out here.
  In 1992, back in an era long gone by now when I was chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, I 
passed a piece of legislation which was signed into law by President 
Bush, outlawing radio scanners which were capable of listening in on 
cellular phone conversations because it was and it is illegal to 
eavesdrop on cellular phone conversations. The legislative intent at 
that time was to ensure that people could not manufacture, import, 
sell, or use scanners that allowed people to eavesdrop on people's 
cellular phone conversations.
  The bill that we are dealing with today is quite straightforward. It 
is simply an extension of that previous policy, but catching up with 
the rapid change in technology. The central

[[Page H859]]

point of the bill to simply extend the prohibition on the manufacturing 
of scanners to include not only cellular frequencies but also the 
frequencies used by the next generation of wireless technology, so-
called PCS technologies, which are really digital technologies, 
microcellular telephone systems.
  Mr. Chairman, digital technology actually makes it more difficult for 
unethical people to eavesdrop on individuals' private conversations, 
but it is not in and of itself a fail-safe technological inoculation 
against privacy invasions. For that reason, I believe that this 
legislation is absolutely necessary today. We must pass it.
  In addition, I think that we should discuss as well the whole 
question of encryption policy. That is what kind of sound encryption 
policy can we put on the books in order to give people the ability to 
protect themselves with the best privacy-enhancing tools possible.
  Mr. Chairman, important ethical questions loom for us. In fact, as a 
society, this rapid technological change affects us all, no matter 
where we live, no matter which technology we now use. And although 
aspects of our evolving national telecommunications policy and networks 
represent a new frontier from a technological standpoint, we must 
always remember that the fundamental principles of right and wrong stay 
the same whether we are in the real world or we are in the virtual 
world. The same fundamental principles have to remain intact.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly that we need to establish 
basic privacy principles for the telecommunications arena. Just because 
personal information can be collected, just because it can be gleaned 
off of the airwaves, off of the Internet, or can be cross-referenced by 
computers into sophisticated data lists for sale to others, does not 
mean that it has been technologically predetermined that privacy rights 
and societal values have to bend to that technology.
  Last year I introduced legislation that would establish a Privacy 
Bill of Rights for the information age. And I hope that we can begin to 
have the kinds of discussion in this Congress, in this country, that 
would ensure that we have fully dealt with the implications of this 
technological revolution, that we have given the technologically savvy 
protections to people that they are going to need to protect their 
financial data, their health data, their personal information, and that 
they have real rights to in fact ensure that their privacy is not in 
danger.
  Mr. Chairman, today's bill addresses an important segment of our 
communications networks: The PCS wireless marketplace. It will be 
important for us as a society to pass this law, to give that 
protection, and then to move on to the even broader debate of the 
implications of our ever-expanding network of networks, the Internet, 
satellite, other wireless technologies, cable systems and others, so 
there is a broad-based Privacy Bill of Rights that every American is 
entitled to regardless of the technology which they are using.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to using today's debate and discussion 
as a foundation for a larger debate about privacy in this new era, in 
this cyberspace era into which we have all been dragged, willingly or 
unwillingly, with all of our private information put out there for 
observation by those of which we know little and, in fact, should be 
quite concerned.
  So I would like to say, again, the gentleman from Louisiana has 
identified this issue. He has been able to build a consensus on our 
committee that has made it possible for us to move forward in a 
dramatic presentation in our committee. He made quite clear to all of 
the Members how critical it was for us to move, and as a result, we are 
out here on the floor. The gentleman from Louisiana deserves great 
credit for this important legislation that moved so quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first of all thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bliley), chairman of the full committee, for his comments and 
support and his active assistance in the passage of this legislation. 
His statement I think in a very personal way again describes how 
important it is for Americans not only to have an expectation of 
privacy, but to have those of us in policy positions to reinforce and 
protect that expectation of privacy.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), 
our colleague who last week indeed pushed forward the anticloning 
legislation which is aimed to protect against the cloning of telephone 
numbers and the stealing of people's property through that process. As 
the Chairman alluded to, this bill and that bill go hand-in-hand and 
are part of an ongoing process to redefine in a technological age 
privacy rights in America.
  Mr. Chairman, let me quickly turn to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), my dear friend for whom my respect and admiration has 
always been bountiful, and which continues to grow as our relationship 
in Congress continues to widen and expand. Let me tell this House that 
very often we fail to say thank you to those who precede us in the work 
we do, and I want to say publicly ``thank you'' to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, former chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, for the very 
excellent work he and his committee has done in the past to build a 
record of support for privacy rights and the law upon which we build 
today an extension of those rights.
  The gentleman has indeed been a leader in defining privacy rights in 
America in a technological age, and I want to pledge to the gentleman 
and to all of his past efforts, a continuation of that debate and I 
hope the full fruition of his goals and objectives, because I share 
them in defining privacy rights, not only in telephone service but on 
the Internet, in the broadband area; the privacy rights that should be 
able to protect people in their health records and their financial 
records as they do electronic commerce, in their property rights, and 
as people conduct business over the broadband services of satellite and 
wireless communications systems.
  In that regard, let me further elaborate on the very important need 
for this legislation today and again commend all of my colleagues for 
the unanimous vote we received in the Committee on Commerce to report 
this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, 43 million Americans now communicate via wireless 
cellular and PCS telephone devices. That does not even count the many 
millions of Americans who use cordless phones in their homes, which are 
indeed wireless devices inside our homes: 43 million Americans, 80 
percent of which use wireless communications based upon the old analog 
system, which is easily compromised by scanners designed to do that.
  In our committee room we demonstrated how with a small piece of wire 
and a soldering iron we could take a legal scanning device and convert 
it into an illegal scanning device. We used information that was being 
promoted on the Internet to learn how to do it. On the Internet there 
were companies advertising that they would take a legal scanner and 
convert it so that it would be a device to listen in on one's neighbors 
and friends as they tried to conduct private conversations on the 
telephone.
  Literally, the problem is growing and becoming worse. We are told by 
the law enforcement community that while 43 million Americans are 
trying to communicate privately on their telephones, 10 million other 
Americans now have the technological power to listen in. That ought to 
be untenable in our society.
  Mr. Chairman, the right of privacy is intricately related to our 
freedoms and liberty in our society. Take away the right of privacy and 
we deny Americans intimately of their basic rights to be free. If we 
cannot be free in our communications, how restricted are we in our 
rights to participate as citizens in a free society with thought and 
free speech, highly regarded and, in fact, deeply protected in our 
Constitution?
  So we embark today on an effort to further protect the right of 
people to have that freedom, that right of privacy in an age when 
compromising communications technologically is becoming all too easy 
and all too accessible to people in our society.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say it again, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, my friend, has said it. The fact that I have

[[Page H860]]

the power to do something does not give me the right to do it. The fact 
that I have the power to harm someone physically does not give me the 
legal right to do it. The fact that I have the power to walk over to my 
neighbor's mailbox and intercept his mail and read it does not give me 
the right to do so. And Federal law prohibits that activity.
  In the same way, the fact that someone has the power, the capacity 
with a technological device to listen in on our conversations that we 
have an expectation of privacy about does not give that person, or 
anyone in our society, the right to listen in without a proper court 
order, because in fact a court has determined that that is permissible.
  Absent that fact, we all have an expectation of privacy, and we in 
government ought to do everything we can to protect that expectation of 
privacy. That is what this bill is about. This bill is designed to say 
in this analog era, as we move into a digital era where encryption, 
that is devices that are going to try to protect privacy in 
conversations and Internet communications, as these encryption devices 
are invented and as other smart people try to find technologically how 
to break into those encryption systems, we have nevertheless to say in 
law that while someone might be able to do it, while someone might be 
smart enough to intercept my conversation in the digital area, they 
still do not have a right to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill says to intercept it is a crime. To take that 
conversation and give it to someone else is a crime. To publish it is a 
crime, as is currently the law. And it also says to the FCC that they 
do not have to wait for the Federal Justice Department to give them 
permission to enforce this law.

                              {time}  1100

  You have to go out and protect the 43 million Americans who have a 
right to that protection. In short, this bill advances the freedom of 
Americans. It advances privacy rights, but it is just the first step. 
As my friend from Massachusetts said, we have much more work to do. We 
have much more to do in defining people's privacy rights and indeed to 
protect those rights as we move into a much more complicated age of 
communications in our society and in the world.
  I again want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for his incredible 
collegial effort to make this happen today and for building the base 
upon which this law is constructed to further improve the rights of 
Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have witnessed in the last 50 years in our country the rapid 
evolution of the personal computer. Moreover we have seen in the last 
few years the explosive growth of that global network of such machines 
that is called the Internet. Interestingly, a French Jesuit priest 
named Teilhard de Chardin talked about this emerging worldwide web. He 
wrote, however, not about the sheer wonder of a linked network of 
machinery, but, rather, about the true intelligence of such a network, 
the human aspect of it. In a book called The Formation of the 
Noosphere, a half century ago, he wrote the following: No one can deny 
that a network, a world network, of economic and psychic affiliations 
is being woven at ever-increasing speed which envelops and constantly 
penetrates more deeply within each of us. With every day that passes, 
it becomes a little more possible for us to act or to think otherwise 
than collectively.
  This philosophy foreshadowed what we would hear later from Marshall 
McLuhan, and McLuhan constantly made reference to that Jesuit priest, 
Teilhard de Chardin, when McLuhan coined the phrase ``global village.'' 
But that in many ways was just secular shorthand for Teilhard's 
philosophy.
  As a student at Boston College in the 1960s, I was taught this 
philosophy in the same way that the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who is Jesuit-educated, as the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the ranking Democrat on 
this committee who is Jesuit-educated, was also exposed to this very 
same philosophy of the interconnectiveness of all of us, the 
convergence of humans into a single massive noosphere, using the word 
``noos'' for the word meaning ``mind'' in Greek.
  Although Teilhard articulated his vision using a religious lexicon, 
his concept of a web of human connectivity that would envelop the Earth 
and be propelled by human consciousness sounds remarkably similar to 
today's Net, and because we have the chance to animate technology with 
human values, it is vitally important for us to ensure that the 
technology does not define us, but that we define the technology with 
the human values that we want it to embody.
  There is a certain Dickensian quality to all of these technologies. 
It is the best of wires, and it is the worst of wires simultaneously. 
This wondrous set of telecommunications skills and technologies that 
makes it possible to build this new world of electronic commerce, to 
make it possible for children and schools across the country to be able 
to communicate on it, also has the capacity to compromise our privacy, 
to insinuate itself into our daily lives in ways in which we never 
anticipated.
  The legislation which we have before us today is a very important 
step towards protecting citizens, animating it with human values that 
reflects the best of what humanity believes this technology can provide 
for us. While limiting the negative consequences, the unintended 
consequences that so much is a part of the very same dual personality 
of these technologies.
  Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Having been 
educated at Harvard on the Bayou, Nicholls State College in Louisiana, 
I deeply respect that philosophical training my friend has had. I take 
it from that that the Irish Catholic community is in support of this 
bill, and so is the Cajun Catholic community.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson).
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I was going to ask the gentleman if he 
could translate what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
said.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen. Between the two of them they 
have hit every segment of the American educational level. We appreciate 
that.
  However, I have to admit I understand him better than I do you. He 
speaks English.
  The cellular telephone industry is growing rapidly. As we know, there 
is currently about 56 million Americans that use cellular phones today. 
One of the things that Thomas Jefferson said early on was there are 
three things we ought to do in America. One is take care of our foreign 
affairs, two is deliver the mail, and three is protect this Nation and 
the general welfare. That is precisely what this bill does, protects 
our people, this great America, against intrusion by anyone.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for coming 
to the telecommunications corridor in Richardson, Texas, which is just 
north of Dallas. As my colleagues know, every company, just about, is 
represented there. I would invite the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) to accompany the gentleman next time.
  I tell my colleagues, the advance of technology is such that 
something has to be done to protect the American people. If Members 
recall, last week, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 
already discussed it, Congress outlawed equipment that allows criminals 
to steal telephone numbers and run up bills to unsuspecting users. 
Today we are protecting the right to private conversation over cellular 
phones. If I am talking to my accountant, my banker, my wife or my 
children, I want to have the security that no one is recording my call 
or putting it out on CNN.
  This bill does that, and it protects private conversation between two 
people. That is what America is all about. The gentleman mentioned it, 
the freedoms that we enjoy, that our servicemen have fought so long and 
so many years over to protect. Now we are adding one more protection.

[[Page H861]]

  I thank the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their bill. I hope it will pass 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Republican caucus.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce and the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications for bringing this bill to the floor. 
As another Jesuit-educated Member of this institution, I take with 
great pride my colleagues in the institution who have had the honor of 
being so educated.
  Mr. Chairman, as we approach this new millennium, we are in the midst 
of a communications revolution that we have all come to call the 
information age. Just look around this Capitol complex. Virtually every 
Member and staffer is making use of new technology to keep them in 
closer contact with the people that they represent.
  It is not just here in the Capitol. Whether it is a cell phone 
attached to an ear, as we call home from the road, whether it is a 
pager that is buzzing on our hip to remind us of our next appointment 
or a vote here on the floor, or the laptop computers that we use, many 
at this very moment checking on their latest e-mail, more than 50 
million Americans use some sort of mobile electronic communication 
service each and every day.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans are using the new technology of the 
information age to keep pace with the unbelievable demands of daily 
life in America today. And our privacy laws that allow them to do so 
freely and securely must keep pace as well. We have come to expect that 
the things we do in our homes and the calls that we make on our 
telephones will not be the subject of arbitrary eavesdropping or 
illegal snooping. And it is the responsibility of this Congress to 
ensure that this time-honored expectation prevails in America during 
this age of the information age.
  Current technology is outpacing the law, so we need to modernize 
Federal law in order to meet the people's expectation of privacy. There 
are technology pirates who cruise the information highway in search of 
other people's private thoughts and secrets. Some do it as voyeurs and 
profiteers. Others do it to destroy their enemies. The reason is 
unimportant. What is important, however, is that this Congress respond 
and do so quickly.
  The Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act that we are considering today 
will update the law to address the challenges of new technology and 
further strengthen penalties for those who choose to illegally 
intercept and divulge private conversations.
  We have a responsibility to periodically update these Federal laws to 
maintain public confidence in new technology. And gray areas in current 
law affecting such things as digital phones, fax machines, pagers and 
computers demand that we act now.
  In my mind there is no better example that exists for the need for 
protection against this kind of snooping than the illegal taping and 
distribution of a phone call, a cellular phone call between myself and 
some of my House colleagues last year. I made this call in December of 
1996 using my wife's cell phone in her car during our Christmas 
vacation. While I spoke to several of my House colleagues, little did I 
know that my words and my expressions were being recorded and would end 
up as part of a public relations campaign to try to destroy the Speaker 
of this very House. The incident should prompt each of us to pause and 
to consider the importance of this legislation and this particular 
issue.
  What are the American people to expect from technology pirates who 
step into the breach for illegal or immoral purposes? Today I speak 
from personal experience about the outrage and sense of powerlessness 
one feels when they learn that their expectation of privacy has been 
destroyed. The stakes are high in the battle for the law to keep pace 
with this new technology. If we fail to protect the American people's 
sense of privacy, if we fail to keep the door open to the next wave, we 
are actually shutting the door to the next wave of technological 
advances. We have closed the door on a key component of a brighter, 
more secure American future, and I do not think that is what any of us 
want to do.
  The people's thirst for new gadgets and conveniences is tied to their 
belief that new technologies provide a basic level of security and 
privacy. If we stand by and allow the lawless and the obsessed to tape 
and reveal private words and comments, do we honestly expect the 
American people to trust and rely on this new wave of technology?
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to bring the privacy laws of this Nation 
into the 21st century. I urge all my colleagues today to support this 
legislation and to send a strong and unequivocal message to all of 
those who would deny the American people some expectation of privacy 
with their wireless devices.
  Our message should be plain and simple: If you violate someone's 
privacy, you are not creating idle mischief, you are breaking the law, 
and you will be brought to justice.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to come down here to the House 
to lend my support and approval for H.R. 2369, the Wireless Privacy 
Enhancement Act. For me and my congressional district and for the State 
of Florida, the key, important aspect of this bill is the change made 
to protect the needs of the amateur radio community and the needs of 
news organizations and others that rely on scanners to perform their 
duties.
  As my colleagues know, my home State of Florida is slightly 
susceptible to natural disasters, and we are just now beginning to 
recover from the horrific tornado-driven storms from the past weekend. 
Without the aid of the amateur radio operators, Florida would suffer 
more during these disasters. The operators perform an invaluable 
service in helping coordinate disaster assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the countless individuals who dedicate their 
time and services in order to help their neighbors in times of 
emergencies. Therefore, I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for addressing their needs.

                              {time}  1115

  I strongly believe that this legislation will strengthen privacy in 
personal communications by allowing for the prosecution of either 
interception or divulgence of cellular and other radio communications, 
both analog and digital. This is a good bill. I thank the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his effectiveness in this matter.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take a minute to compliment the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and his efforts at our 
subcommittee level indeed to make sure that our bill did not interfere 
with the rights of the legal standing community, the amateur radio 
operators who do assist dramatically in times of natural disaster. My 
home State of Louisiana as he knows was visited by Andrew as his was 
just a few years ago. We have a desperate need for the services. The 
work he did in our subcommittee to ensure that we did not interfere 
with those legitimate uses of scanners is an important aspect of this 
bill that I am very glad the gentleman highlighted today on the floor.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would like to again thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
for his excellent work on this legislation. It is going to, I think, be 
looked back at as a very important piece of legislation. As we move 
from 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 million Americans with cell phones and PCS 
phones, they will be grateful that this law is on the books.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), I want to 
thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), of course, on our side 
as well as all the others on our side. I would like to commend the 
staff: Whitney Fox; John Morabito; Tricia Paoletta, a Boston College 
graduate, I might add, Jesuit-trained; Mike O'Rielly, Andy Levin

[[Page H862]]

and David Schooler for their work on the legislation as well; on my 
staff to Colin Crowell who has worked on these privacy-related issues 
for the last 6 or 7 years, becoming one of the Nation's real experts on 
the subject, all of them necessary in order to put this legislation 
together.
  By the way, Colin is also a graduate of Boston College and Jesuit 
trained, as a result reflecting these larger values I think in the 
spiritual and practical sense that Teilhard would have wanted.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time with the hope that 
the Members will give unanimous support to this bill this morning.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
indeed to close this debate and to again thank all the members of the 
committee who participated in this effort. As the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has done before me, let me add my thanks to 
the staff. He has done them all the honor of naming them personally. 
Let me concur in that, in that commendation to each one of you. The 
work of the staff has always been marvelous in terms of support for 
making sure this language is properly crafted and properly completed.
  I also wanted to add to that thanks to the staff of the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and particularly to Andy Levin who has been 
an important part of this legislation and to the gentleman from 
Michigan personally for his assistance in working with us as a team as 
we usually do on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications to craft good 
legislation for our country.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, this is but a first effort. Members will see 
us again on this floor, I hope very soon, talking about privacy rights 
on the Internet and privacy rights for Americans in their health care 
records, in their financial records, in their financial transactions as 
they literally explore these new technologies in learning to 
communicate in commerce with one another a great deal more than even we 
know today. In that regard as we come to this floor, our effort will 
continue to again define and redefine and enlarge the right of 
Americans to conduct their communications and their privacy 
transactions in a way that respects and enlarges upon that expectation 
of privacy.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, although I was unable to attend today's 
debate, I would like to voice my full support for H.R. 2369, the 
Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act. I believe that privacy is a 
fundamental right of all American's. This bill secures privacy problems 
for all commercial cellular services, specialized radio devices and 
paging equipment. The bill requires the FCC to deny authorization to 
scanners that are equipped with decoders that could convert digital 
cellular, SMR's or PCS to analog voice, or convert paging to digital 
text. Please know that if I were able, I would have voted for the final 
passage of H.R. 2369.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, with thanks to all who participated in this 
effort, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule each section is 
considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Wireless Privacy Enhancement 
     Act of 1998''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. COMMERCE IN ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING DEVICES.

       (a) Prohibition on Modification.--Section 302(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 302a(b)) is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: 
     ``, or modify any such device, equipment, or system in any 
     manner that causes such device, equipment, or system to fail 
     to comply with such regulations''.
       (b) Prohibition on Commerce in Scanning Receivers.--Section 
     302(d) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 302a(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Equipment Authorization Regulations.--
       ``(1) Privacy protections required.--The Commission shall 
     prescribe regulations, and review and revise such regulations 
     as necessary in response to subsequent changes in technology 
     or behavior, denying equipment authorization (under part 15 
     of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part 
     of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of--
       ``(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies that are 
     allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications 
     service or the personal communications service;
       ``(B) readily being altered to receive transmissions in 
     such frequencies;
       ``(C) being equipped with decoders that--
       ``(i) convert digital domestic cellular radio 
     telecommunications service, personal communications service, 
     or protected specialized mobile radio service transmissions 
     to analog voice audio; or
       ``(ii) convert protected paging service transmissions to 
     alphanumeric text; or
       ``(D) being equipped with devices that otherwise decode 
     encrypted radio transmissions for the purposes of 
     unauthorized interception.
       ``(2) Privacy protections for shared frequencies.--The 
     Commission shall, with respect to scanning receivers capable 
     of receiving transmissions in frequencies that are used by 
     commercial mobile services and that are shared by public 
     safety users, examine methods, and may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary, to enhance the privacy of 
     users of such frequencies.
       ``(3) Tampering prevention.--In prescribing regulations 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider 
     defining `capable of readily being altered' to require 
     scanning receivers to be manufactured in a manner that 
     effectively precludes alteration of equipment features and 
     functions as necessary to prevent commerce in devices that 
     may be used unlawfully to intercept or divulge radio 
     communication.
       ``(4) Warning labels.--In prescribing regulations under 
     paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider requiring labels 
     on scanning receivers warning of the prohibitions in Federal 
     law on intentionally intercepting or divulging radio 
     communications.
       ``(5) Definitions.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `protected' means secured by an electronic method that is not 
     published or disclosed except to authorized users, as further 
     defined by Commission regulation.''.
       (c) Implementing Regulations.--Within 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall prescribe amendments to its regulations for 
     the purposes of implementing the amendments made by this 
     section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  The Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OR PUBLICATION OF 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     605) is amended--
       (1) in the heading of such section, by inserting 
     ``INTERCEPTION OR'' after ``UNAUTHORIZED'';
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United 
     States Code, no person'' and inserting ``No person'';
       (3) in the second sentence of subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``intentionally'' before ``intercept''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``and divulge'' and inserting ``or 
     divulge'';
       (4) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a) and 
     inserting the following: ``Nothing in this subsection 
     prohibits an interception or disclosure of a communication as 
     authorized by chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code.'';
       (5) in subsection (e)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``fined not more than $2,000 or''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or fined under title 18, United States 
     Code,'' after ``6 months,''; and
       (6) in subsection (e)(3), by striking ``any violation'' and 
     inserting ``any receipt, interception, divulgence, 
     publication, or utilization of any communication in 
     violation'';
       (7) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ``any other activity 
     prohibited by subsection (a)'' and inserting ``any receipt, 
     interception, divulgence, publication, or utilization of any 
     communication in violation of subsection (a)''; and
       (8) by adding at the end of subsection (e) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Notwithstanding any other investigative or 
     enforcement activities of any other Federal agency, the 
     Commission shall investigate alleged violations of this 
     section and may proceed to initiate action under section 503 
     of this Act to impose forfeiture penalties with respect to 
     such violation upon conclusion of the Commission's 
     investigation.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?

[[Page H863]]

  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Boehner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Calvert, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2369) to 
amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen and clarify 
prohibitions on electronic eavesdropping, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 377, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414, 
nays 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 38]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Doolittle
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilpatrick
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Schiff
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1144

  Mr. KOLBE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________