[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.
____________________